(Update: If you want to read a column that does an excellent job summarizing the position I’m trying to fight against in my post below, check this out from The Huffington Post.)
Want to know why so many Americans hate unions?
Look no further than the following excerpt from an article in the New York Times, dated December 11, 2008, about the frenzied last-minute debate in the Senate over whether to spend billions in taxpayer dollars bailing out the auto industry. The article is about an 11th-hour proposal — named “the Corker amendment” after Tennessee Senator Bob Corker — put forward by Republicans after the Democrats’ plan (that had already passed in the House) seemed to be dead. Under the new proposed plan,
The automakers would also be required to cut wages and benefits to match the average hourly wage and benefits of Nissan, Toyota and Honda employees based in the United States, and the companies would have to impose equivalent work rules. The plan would bar any pay for idled workers other than “customary severance pay.”
Democratic Congressional aides said that the United Auto Workers union did not support the proposal, but was willing to negotiate.
Apparently, Democrats in the Senate are entirely beholden to the UAW, if this Politico article is to be believed:
UAW approval will be decisive for Democrats, “The UAW does not support the Corker amendment as offered. But we are in contact with them and they are discussing this,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Consider how this tidbit of political wrangling comes across to the many millions of American workers who do not belong to a union — such as the American employees of Toyota, Honda and Nissan. They read the news, they know this country lost nearly two million jobs last year, including more than 500,000 last month. They may accept the idea that a bailout is necessary to keep the American economy from spiraling downward, but they see that this “bailout” is fundamentally unfair.
Consider John Raternick, a tool and machine maker from Grand Rapids, Michegan, as quoted in the New York Times:
“If we look at thousands of workers in counties around here, they got no sympathy,” he said. “We got hurt, and we got hurt badly. As a result of (the auto companies’) practices, I haven’t seen a raise in six years, and I’ve seen my health benefits decline.”
…
At the shop where Mr. Raterink makes tools and machinery, there used to be 15 men. Now there are five.
“They weren’t offered any bailout,” he said of those who lost their jobs. Then, of the Big Three and the mismanagement he perceives, he added, “The wolf you let loose is at your door.”
“Where’s my bailout?” wonders Mr. Raternick, and millions of other Americans all across this country who don’t believe forming or joining a union is an option for them at a time when companies are scrambling to avoid bankruptcy.
Is everyone in America entitled to their job? Obviously, the millions who’ve already lost their jobs weren’t entitled to keep theirs, and neither are the auto workers at Chrystler, GM and Ford.
The millions of already-jobless Americans may receive unemployment benefits and other federal and private help — but the federal government isn’t rushing in to spend billions saving their jobs. So why is the government making such a big deal over saving the auto workers’ jobs in Detroit? Here’s how the Bush Administration answered the question.
“We believe that the economy is in such a weakened state right now that adding another possible loss of one million jobs is just something our economy cannot sustain at the moment,” Dana Perino, President Bush’s chief spokeswoman, said at a news briefing.
And here’s what Obama says:
“… at this moment of great challenge for our economy, we cannot simply stand by and watch this industry collapse. Doing so would lead to a devastating ripple effect throughout our economy.”
In other words, it may be unfair that some people’s jobs are saved with billions in taxpayer dollars while other people’s jobs are allowed to disappear — but we have to weigh the imperative to be fair against a more pressing imperative: to minimize the suffering of Americans as a whole.
The American Auto Workers also explained their support for the auto bailout in terms of the U.S. economy as a whole, according to a press release issued today by the United Auto Workers:
“The U.S. House of Representatives has taken responsible action with a bipartisan vote to support bridge loans for the U.S. auto industry,” UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said.
“The Senate must now act on this critical legislation, which President Bush helped to draft and will sign. It’s clear there is majority support in Congress for these emergency bridge loans, which will protect millions of jobs, thousands of businesses, and hundreds of billions in tax revenues at all levels of government.
“We can’t let a minority in the Senate obstruct an urgent response to an economic crisis which threatens the long-term viability of our U.S. manufacturing base — not when millions of jobs are at risk in all 50 states.”
We must act now, Gettelfinger says! For millions of jobs, thousands of businesses, hundreds of billions in tax revenue! In all 50 states! We can’t allow anybody to obstruct an urgent response to an economic crisis. Anybody, that is, except for the Auto Workers, who are now apparently “willing to negotiate” over the plan.
What’s to negotiate? Is Gettelfinger seriously suggesting he’d be willing to walk out on the whole $14 billion deal if his workers have to work for the same pay and benefits that workers recieve at other car companies? First he says it’ll be terrible for the economy if the plan fails — but then he’s holding things up so he can push for special treatment?
I’d ask this of Gettelfinger and his workers: What makes them so special? Why are they entitled to a better deal than the workers get at Toyota, Honda and Nissan? More to the point, why should American taxpayers spend billions perpetuating a system that unfairly rewards one set of workers more than another set of workers? Why shouldn’t we spend those billions helping the millions of Americans who never had no unions, don’t have jobs, and may lose their homes?
The American auto workers are poised to benefit from a proposal that unfairly benefits them, and they’re quibbling over the details — and it infuriates the rest of America.
My understanding is that over the past several decades, American labor unions have shrunk in their size and influence, while our economy has become far more global, subjecting American businesses to far more foreign competition.
These two trends seem to go hand in hand in many cases: A huge share of our manufacturing sector –where unions were once far more powerful than they are today — has moved overseas to take advantage of cheap wages, cheasy or non-existent labor laws and environmental standards, etc.
The fact now is that most Americans don’t belong to unions and many Americans see unions as providing an unfair, almost exploitative advantage to their members.
Americans who don’t belong to unions and don’t believe they benefit from unions view the unions’ continuing influence within the Democratic party with suspicion — and can you blame them, when folks like Gettelfinger are trying to squeeze taxpayers just so their employees can have an unfair advantage?
Wouldn’t it be better — and fairer — if liberals abandoned their commitment to the concept of labor unions and focused instead on strengthening the social safety net, so the failure of companies such as the big three auto makers wouldn’t be such a threat to the overall economy?