...a bailout's a bailout, at least as far as taxpayers are concerned. So why are we holding blue-collar workers to a different standard than their white-collar kin?
Testifying before a Senate panel Thursday, the UAW's Gettelfinger laid it on the line. "I believe we could lose General Motors by the end of this month" unless Congress approves the bailout, he said.Yes. Yes, you could indeed make that argument.
Why was there no pressure on workers at Citigroup, insurance giant American International Group Inc. and mortgage behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make similarly team-spirited pitches for their respective employers?
Why was no gesture of humility required from the white-collar crowd, even something as relatively minor as a 5% pay cut until their respective companies return to more solid financial footing?
"It's completely backward," said Eve Weinbaum, director of the labor studies program at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "There's this perception that the people who make things with their hands somehow count for less than people on Wall Street who sit around thinking up things like derivatives.
"You could argue that an economy doesn't need derivatives but does need manufacturing."
Anglachel adds:
From my perspective, this is another sign of the fault line in the Democratic Party and is indicative of where and how the power elite is going to spend their political capital.I would add that Obama favored the Wall Street bailout but ruled out, from the get-go, any direct aid to homeowners facing foreclosure. That tells us where his sympathies really lie, even though he may mouth words (just words) supportive of laid-off workers.
Incidentally, Lazarus wrote an earlier column which includes this noteworthy paragraph:
My proposal is this: Any U.S. automaker receiving bailout funds must produce a workable blueprint for an affordable 100-mile-per-gallon car within two years, with full-scale production to follow within five years.50 mpg will suffice, but let's push up the schedule.
Lazarus (and the interview subjects he quotes) are too quick to condemn GM and Ford for making gas guzzlers. Until quite recently, American consumers wanted behemoths; the gas hogs carried a higher profit margin.
Should all blame goal to the pusher? Shouldn't some blame go to the fellow sticking the needle into his arm?
7 comments:
I see it as an all out war on the working class and especially those who belong to unions. Just the other day in the breakroom at the place where I work a woman was blaming the union for this mess. As long as they keep us, the workers, divided then we have no chance.
The monied elite want to kill off social security, they want to stop property taxes, and they want to depress wages while keeping the prices of goods high. Why? Greed. There is never enough for these folks.
The real unfortunate guise of their way of thinking is that after hogging up all the resources and impoverishing the rest of us they turn around and give a few bucks to charity and they feel real good about themselves for helping those of us who are less fortunate. I call BS.
I may not like it but the government should bail out the big 3, at least for now. But at the same time we should be investing heavily into new industry. Forget ethanol and fuel cell technologies for transportation.
Both are unworkable or dangerous. Ethanol from corn has a double whammy, it uses food as a source and it requires to much energy to produce. Fuel cell technology will burn hydrogen which is clean and simple. The problem is where do we get the hydrogen. If we cleave a water atom apart then we are essentially burning water for fuel. Here in the south/southwest that is a very big problem.
What we need is solar technologies. We should invest billions if not trillions into this. It will open up many new jobs especially for people like me, underemployed scientists. Manufacturing jobs, installation jobs, small businesses, etc. We could reconstruct our economy around that instead of around oil. There are many other avenues we could explore to jump start or economy. The problem is that our politicians don't really want to change the status quo. It really is all about maintaining the hierarchy.
The reason the UAW is slammed when other workforces were not is the antipathy and anti-union sentiment that has been fostered through the nation, and these lies about the $70+ per hour 'compensation.'
Also, very few have specified, and fewer still noticed, the concessions that the UAW has ALREADY been making through their last several contract renegotiations. They have substantially addressed ALL extant issues of their compensation being reduced, including allowing a second tier of newer workers at nearly a 50% wage reduction, reining in health care costs, etc.
If it is true that Obama is giving short shrift to workers in this industry, it's probably true that it would be the same for all the Big national 'responsible' leadership type Democrats (of the kind who voted for the Iraq war authorization of use of force). None of the 'top' Democrats are populists, all of which are instead back benchers like Kucinich, Feingold, etc.
XIslander
Should all blame goal to the pusher? Shouldn't some blame go to the fellow sticking the needle into his arm?
Not really. Ala Field of Dreams, if they (the auto makers) built them, they (the consuming public) would come (around to buying them). If they are not built, they cannot be bought at all, whatsoever, despite whatever latent demand might be present and show up if there had been any such supply.
XIslander
They went fishing amongst sharks and caught the guppie.
Personally, I don't understand why the automakers are coming with their hands out. They seemed to have addressed many of the issues plaguing their industry when they came back with their proposals. So why not just file Chapter 11 retool and do it.
GregoryP, I agree with you. It's not just the union. But union requirements for wages/benefits have priced them out of the market. They have competitors that make a better car at a cheaper price. Labor is just one piece of the puzzle, and it looks like the union is willing to play ball. (How much? I don't know.)
"The problem is that our politicians don't really want to change the status quo. It really is all about maintaining the hierarchy."
So nice should be posted twice.
XI, I just do not think you are being fair. If car makers had all refrained from building SUVs, they would have been guilty of collusion. If one refrained, the other would have stepped in to take up the slack.
There is simply no excusing the consumer from this mess. We could have had a decent 100 mpg car by now if the market had demanded one.
Joseph, wasn't the Ford Escort one of the highest selling cars back in the 80's. I drove a Chevette for 3 or 4 years. Another car I remember people driving en masse was the Toyota Corolla. The small car is what made Toyota. Ford and Chevy threw the value customer ie poor/middle class under the bus in their pusuit of those with big credit rating scores and bigger profit margins. Ford, Chevy and Dodge could bring back some quality small cars that get 40-50+ miles per gallon. You don't need hybrids to do that either.
Don't forget how government gave huge incentives in the form of tax credits to those who bought all those gas guzzling SUV's. If people were getting those huge tax credits for buying smaller, fuel efficient cars the SUV's would have gone out of fashion long ago.
Yes they did give tax credits for certain hybrids ect but the way the system works you have to buy the hybrid that has not nly been recomended and approved for a credit worthy status but also each of those had a limited number of tax credits that could be claimed.
Couldn't just give a nice credit to any purchase of a hybrid or fuel efficient car that would have been too easy and it wouldn't have given the same profits to the auto makers they get from a huge gas guzzler.
CQ
Post a Comment