(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?
The “unfair, almost exploitative advantage” unions provide to their workers is, you know, health care coverage, a reasonable pension, a decent wage, protections against contingencies of the market, that kind of exploitative stuff.
The suggestion that because some workers have a worse time — precisely because they’re not in unions — we need to dismantle the hard-won protections other workers have gotten is a bit perverse. In fact, we should be pushing to make it easier for workers to unionize, not harder.
The way to frame the debate over the Corker amendment is this: Why do Senate Republicans hate unions so much that they’re willing to risk a depression-like level of job losses in this country to make an ideological stand against unions?
It was, I should mention, the CREDIT CRISIS that pushed automakers to this dire point, compounding their already substantial problems.
Meanwhile, the banks that oversaw the formation of the credit crisis get no-strings-attached bailout dollars. Their employees get taxpayer funded million dollar bonuses. Their shareholders get dividends. They use tax dollars not as intended (cause we didn’t demand a controlling stake) but to buy other companies. The credit markets remain, as a consequence, frozen, making it really hard on manufacturers and auto dealers.
This is pure class warfare on the part of Republicans. They want to weaken or destroy the unions at any cost and this is the perfect opportunity to do so, cause the unions are over a barrel. The Republican tactic is to spark intra-class resentment. “You’re not in a stable job, Wal-Mart Worker,” worker-loving Republicans say, “and look how greedy those UAW folks are, asking for your tax dollars! They’re soo greedy. They think they’re sooo special. Tsk tsk.”
Meanwhile, raising taxes on the top 5% of earners is “impossible” or “a very bad idea” during a recession. No, we wouldn’t want to take a single dime from the investment banker who was partly responsible for causing the crisis. No, in fact, since even the market won’t give the investment banker a dime either, let’s give the investment banker the Wal-Mart and UAW workers dimes. That’s redistribution we can believe in.
Comment by Lee — December 12, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Steve Benen gives this account of the Corker fiasco:
That’s how much Senate Republicans apparently hate unions. Not even the current occupants of the White House agree with this obstruction, it should be noted, and they’re no fans of organized labor.
Comment by Lee — December 12, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
You write, “The “unfair, almost exploitative advantage” unions provide to their workers is, you know, health care coverage, a reasonable pension, a decent wage, protections against contingencies of the market, that kind of exploitative stuff.”
Do you know for a fact that employees at Honda, Nissan and Toyota don’t have health care coverage? Do those workers not have a decent wage? I don’t know what you mean by “contingencies of the market.” As for “a reasonable pension,” the vast majority of working Americans receive no pension whatsoever, and this is precisely the sort of benefit that non-union workers resent. How do you justify the importance of a “reasonable pension” to the nearly 2 million workers who lost their jobs last year. Do you honestly believe American taxpayers should be spending billions protecting the “reasonable pensions” of a small group of auto workers while millions elsewhere are left with nothing? It IS unfair.
You write, “The suggestion that because some workers have a worse time — precisely because they’re not in unions — we need to dismantle the hard-won protections other workers have gotten is a bit perverse. In fact, we should be pushing to make it easier for workers to unionize, not harder.”
The only way to interpret what you’ve written above is that you believe those two million workers would not have lost their jobs if they’d belonged to unions. How would these unions have saved all these jobs?
You also write of the Republican position, saying: “You’re not in a stable job, Wal-Mart Worker,” worker-loving Republicans say, “and look how greedy those UAW folks are, asking for your tax dollars! They’re soo greedy. They think they’re sooo special. Tsk tsk.”
That’s right! That’s precisely what I’m saying! Don’t you agree that it’s hypocritical and bizzare for the UAW to push so hard for an auto bailout and then balk when they’re asked to accept what other workers accept? Why should I care more about union workers than non-union workers? Is your position that union workers deserve to be rewarded by the government for joining a union, but non-union workers should be punished with lesser pay and benefits? It seems like you’re less interested in helping workers than you are in helping unions.
As for giving the investment banker the Wal-mart worker and UAW worker dime, that’s just utter nonsense. What on earth could you be referring to? In what way are Wal-mart workers and union workers giving their money to investment bankers?
As for the Republicans hating unions so much, the same could apparently be said for most American Democrats, who also oppose the bailout. Consider this from the Boston Globe:
“A clear majority of Americans oppose loaning taxpayers’ money to prop up the Big Three auto companies, according to a new poll out today.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey found that 61 percent are against the loans, while 36 percent support them. The poll also found 53 percent who said they don’t believe that aiding the automakers would help the broader economy.
The support for the automakers appears to have dropped since last month, in part because of withering criticism of auto executives, who flew private jets to Washington to ask for money.
While opposition to the bailout is strongest in the West, where 67 percent of respondents said they were against the loans, it is firm across the country: 61 percent of those polled in the Northeast, 64 percent in the South, and 53 percent even in the Midwest, where many automakers are based, also are against the loans.
The opposition is also across political persuasion. 70 percent of Republicans, 62 percent of independents, and 55 percent of Democrats said they oppose the bailout. The survey was conducted Monday and Tuesday and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.”
Ergo, the title of my blog.
Comment by Ian — December 12, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
I really don’t understand where you’re coming from with this post. You’re absolutely right to say that the auto “bridge loan” is unpopular, but so was the $700 billion bailout package.
So we have two “bailouts,” both unpopular, but you seem to have a very different attitude toward each bailout:
#1. In the case of the financial bailout, you argued that it was so necessary that we had to push it through despite popular opposition — and you objected to my suggestion that the bailout needed to be rewritten. You wrote: “I’m concerned that if the government doesn’t step in, the consequences for middle class Americans could be devastating for many years.”
$700 billion was put aside to help get credit markets moving again, TAX dollars — i.e., the money of the UAW worker and the Wal-Mart worker and you and me. We gave tax dollars to banks to recapitalize markets. Of course, because the plan was so badly written, Paulson wasn’t forced to take a controlling stake in the banks, and he didn’t, so what did the banks do instead with our TAX dollars? They gave their executives big bonuses. They used the money to buy other institutions. They paid dividends to shareholders.
We made no demands of them and no requirements. On this horrible malfeasance — and senseless transfer of our tax dollars from you and me to the big banks and their execs — you seem not to have much to say.
#2. Now, when millions of auto-related jobs are at stake, you cite polling data showing the unpopularity of the bailout as if it were evidence of something. What? That we shouldn’t pass the bailout? No, you clearly think we need to pass a bailout so the polling data is irrelevant. It’s not the unions that being bailed out — by being given a ‘bridge loan’ — but the industry and millions of Americans.
So why should we use this bridge loan as a chance to shit on the UAW? This loan is needed not because of any malfeasance by the unions — all they did was to be effective in winning high wages for their workers — but because of the credit crisis caused by the people who were bailout out by #1. But you seem not to be bothered by the behavior of the people bailed out by #1.
To paraphrase your question above: Why should I care more about bank workers than auto workers?
Even under these ridiculous circumstances, the UAW still have made concessions, agreeing to reduce benefits and the like. But these concessions aren’t enough for Senate Republicans — the same Senate Republicans who had no issues bailing out the banking industry, no issues with the malfeasance described in #1. They hate unions so much that they want to break their backs, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with the credit crisis which they are they victims of. They want to use their minority position to obstruct what you yourself seem to admit is necessary legislation for reasons that have nothing to do with the nature of the crisis and everything to do with their anti-union agenda. They’re willing to play chicken with the economy. If the bridge loan fails, the blame must rest squarely with them.
Comment by Lee — December 12, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
BTW, if you want to help workers, help them unionize. Doing so increases their wages and gives them the collective barganing power to acheive better work packages.
Comment by Lee — December 12, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Ian, I’m not inclined to accept as true, a poll whose wording I cannot examine. Do you have a link to the wording used for the poll? That kind of matters here. The article announcing that poll also concedes:
And what exactly would you call it when WalMart and UAW worker’s tax revenue is used to finance a $700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street banks?
Finally, it is not the least bit ‘hypocritical and bizzare for the UAW to push so hard for an auto bailout and then balk when they’re asked to accept what other workers accept’. By your line of reasoning, if other workers accept dog-poop sandwiches, then unions ought to accept them too.
This is the point of Unions – to protect workers interests. I would not expect them to do anything else. Also, is there reason to believe that they are unwilling to accept certain reductions, given the chance to negotiate? What little I know about Unions of late is that they would be willing to accept reductions, provided that there are commensurate sacrifices from management. As per usual, labor is expected to shoulder the majority of the burden. Is that fair?
I just wanted to throw out these two links for a little context:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/12/10/business/20081210_LEONHARDT_GRAPHIC.html
They basically try to put the $70-something dollars an hour into their proper context (benefits, insurance, etc.). The second link is a diagram that breaks it down visually.
So, they’re not actually earning $70-something dollars an hour (which the article points out would translate to about $150,000 a year). Their base wage is actually pretty in line with Japanese auto makers but, the ‘legacy costs’ are primarily what cause the balloon effect.
I have to say, the idea that, somehow, the unions are to blame for the condition of the industry seems unlikely. For over a decade, the Big Three have focused on poorly made, gas guzzling monsters because ‘that’s what consumers want’. Really? Then why were the top three selling cars in the U.S. fuel-efficient foreign sedans? Granted that corresponds to record high gas prices but, what did they think? that oil was getting easier to find?
No, they knew that they were sacrificing their future to enrich shareholders in the near term. They didn’t even attempt to be ready for the impending shift in demand to more fuel-efficient cars. Good Lord, all they had to do was look back to the gas-shocks of the late 70’s! All this Executive negligence while collecting paychecks and bonuses in the millions.
I think it’s worth taking a moment to speak about assumptions of Risk more broadly. Supposedly, these people deserve their big paychecks because they’re willing to assume more ‘risk’. That somehow, their pay is tied to their performance. And yet, when the S**t hits the fan, and it’s their moment of reckoning, they come hat in hand for a bailout. And they don’t think that they should be held accountable!
Fine, let’s bail them out. But, with the condition that they either 1) walk away with whatever winnings they’ve managed, or 2) if they wish to stay on, then they accept the risks that they claim to have taken and receive nothing.
Comment by aaron — December 12, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
I find this article illuminating: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/business/13uaw.html
Quoth the article:
And more:
And finally:
It sounds to me like Senate Republicans either don’t understand Labor relations, how to implement labor agreements, etc. or they were playing ‘fuzzy math’ to try and pull the wool over their eyes.
Comment by aaron — December 12, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
To Aaron and Lee: First of all, I’m perfectly fine with any bailout plan that forces the auto executives to leave their jobs with nothing. Let these executives join the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs.
Aaron, you write, “I have to say, the idea that, somehow, the unions are to blame for the condition of the industry seems unlikely.” I agree. The unions are only “to blame” to the extent that the auto companies are unable to compete because their burdened by higher labor costs — but I agree with you that the real reason for the auto companies’ failures is that they made cars and trucks that people don’t want to buy because they’re gas guzzlers (and because American cars have a poor reputation for quality.)
Also, I don’t actually believe the CNN poll indicates that most Americans hate unions. The poll does indicate that most Americans oppose the auto bailout — and since Lee’s comment suggests that the Republicans who oppose the bailout must be opposing it because they hate unions, I figured the same logic could be applied to the population as a whole.
Lee, you wrote this about the Republicans who opposed the auto bailout, “They hate unions so much that they want to break their backs, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with the credit crisis which they are they victims of. They want to use their minority position to obstruct what you yourself seem to admit is necessary legislation for reasons that have nothing to do with the nature of the crisis and everything to do with their anti-union agenda.”
So my question is: What about the American people? Do they care about this economic crisis? Do they have an anti-union agenda? Because when 60 percent of a Senator’s constituency is opposed to a particular idea, then it doesn’t take an “anti-union agenda” to be against it — all it takes is a desire to win reelection.
Furthermore, 55% of Democrats oppose the bailout — so we can’t blame the Republican Senator’s opposition on some sort of right-wing ideological agenda if a majority of Democrats agree with them. It may be good rhetoric to blame the bailout’s failure on the ideological blindness of conservatives, but it doesn’t make sense when you look at the polls.
Lee, you write, “So we have two “bailouts,” both unpopular, but you seem to have a very different attitude toward each bailout.”
That’s false. I have the same attitude toward both bailouts — I strongly believe they need to happen. To interpret my post as somehow opposed to an auto bailout is just unfair and bizzare. I have voiced my strong support for an auto bailout in the past, and my frustration with the unions is precisely because they seemed to be standing in the way of such a bill getting passed.
Lee, you write, “We made no demands of them and no requirements. On this horrible malfeasance — and senseless transfer of our tax dollars from you and me to the big banks and their execs — you seem not to have much to say.”
I might respond in kind and say you “seem not to have much to say” about Chinese babies dying from tainted baby food. Is it safe for me to assume that you don’t value the life of a Chinese baby because you haven’t said something about it on this blog? Of course not. Similarly, it is not fair for you to assume I’m happy with the way the bank bailout is going just because I haven’t posted about it.
The truth is, I’m horrified that the bank bailout isn’t working, but to argue that I’m being hypocritical (not that I mind — occasionally I am hypocritical) in this case just doesn’t make sense. I wanted the bank bailout. I want the auto bailout.
You write: “Now, when millions of auto-related jobs are at stake, you cite polling data showing the unpopularity of the bailout as if it were evidence of something. What? That we shouldn’t pass the bailout? No, you clearly think we need to pass a bailout so the polling data is irrelevant. It’s not the unions that being bailed out — by being given a ‘bridge loan’ — but the industry and millions of Americans.”
Again, I SUPPORT THE AUTO BAILOUT AND ALWAYS HAVE. So obviously I’m not raising the issue of the polls in order to suggest the bailout shouldn’t pass. I want the bailout to pass SO THE AUTO WORKERS KEEP THEIR JOBS, FOR ALL OUR SAKES. The point of the polling data is that most working Americans resent union workers — and this feeling of resentment is only intensified when unions seem to manipulating the political process to secure special treatment for their constituency.
Aaron, you write, “This is the point of Unions – to protect workers interests. I would not expect them to do anything else. Also, is there reason to believe that they are unwilling to accept certain reductions, given the chance to negotiate? What little I know about Unions of late is that they would be willing to accept reductions, provided that there are commensurate sacrifices from management. As per usual, labor is expected to shoulder the majority of the burden. Is that fair?”
I agree that unions do not care about the country as a whole — no more than the executives do. And the U.S. government doesn’t owe them jobs or benefits, any more than we owed it to the nearly two million Americans who lost their jobs last year. Now, my understanding was that the executives and the unions were coming before Congress and saying — we desperately need help or else we’re going to collapse, and that will be bad for everyone.
And Congress has to decide what to do based on what is best for everyone — not just what is best for the union workers. And an auto bailout, in my opinion, is best for everyone. And I am going to end up paying for this solution, along with every other taxpayer in America. So when the unions start “negotiating” and stating their “opposition,” I get very angry. This best for everyone solution is going to help them most of all — and if it fails, they may all lose their jobs, right?
Lee, you write, “To paraphrase your question above: Why should I care more about bank workers than auto workers?”
I care about all Americans — not just the members of the UAW, not just the bank workers, not just the nearly two million Americans who lost their job last year. I care about doing what it takes to save this economy for the benefit of everyone. And I also care about fairness — which is why it’s annoying that we’re spending billions to protect some jobs and letting other jobs go away.
Lee, you write, “Even under these ridiculous circumstances, the UAW still have made concessions, agreeing to reduce benefits and the like. But these concessions aren’t enough for Senate Republicans — the same Senate Republicans who had no issues bailing out the banking industry, no issues with the malfeasance described in #1.”
There were 25 Senators who voted against the bank bailout. Apparently you agree these Republicans were right and the 74 Senators who voted for this “this horrible malfeasance — and senseless transfer of our tax dollars from you and me to the big banks and their execs” were wrong. (Maybe those Republicans who opposed the bill are smarter than you give them credit for?) Anyway, I would venture that almost all Republicans had major “issues” with passing the bank bailout.
Anyway, comparing the bank bailout to the auto bailout isn’t really legitimate, is it? Congress didn’t approve the bank bailout because the banks deserved a bailout — Congress approved the plan for the good of the whole. Similarly, the auto workers don’t deserve a bailout any more than the millions of already-jobless Americans deserve one. If Congress passes this bailout, it should be because doing so is best for all of us. Is it best for all of us that auto makers for Ford and GM make more than auto makers at Honda and Toyota?
Hmm. Let’s see. Why would Democrats favor uni
ons over the good of the country? Perhaps that’s because unions are such big contributors and activists for the Democratic Party?
Lee, you write, “So why should we use this bridge loan as a chance to shit on the UAW?”
The idea that I’m using this loan as an excuse to excrete on the UAW is just wrong. It suggests I have an anti-union agenda, and I’m exploiting this political and economic crisis to try to make a point about unions that doesn’t actually have anything to do with the matter at hand.
I’m angry at unions for putting their own interests ahead of the interests of other Americans footing the bill to keep them working — and I’m suggesting that most Americans see it my way. “Where’s my bailout?!” people wonder.
Comment by Ian — December 12, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
To Aaron, you write in your last post: “It sounds to me like Senate Republicans either don’t understand Labor relations, how to implement labor agreements, etc. or they were playing ‘fuzzy math’ to try and pull the wool over their eyes.”
It sounds to me like the unions don’t understand that they aren’t in a negotiation with management over a labor contract! They are before the U.S. Congress, begging for billions of dollars of taxpayer money to save their jobs! This isn’t about implementing labor contracts, this is similar to the union holding a gun to its own head and saying “Give me what I want, or I’ll kill myself and everybody else here.” Screw them. Why do they deserve to get what they want when nearly two million American workers had to accept job loss?
Comment by Ian — December 12, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
Point of correction – the diagram I linked to in my first post points out that domestic auto workers do not make more than foreign workers.
Ian, I still don’t get your logic here – what does 2 million workers who lost their jobs have to do with the Union? Should there be a nationalized union? They represent the middle class who, presumably we both agree, needs bailing out, no?
Also, I never said the unions don’t care about Americans (so don’t ‘agree’ with me on that!). On the contrary, they care very much about Americans, so much so that they’ve taken to representing the best interests of millions of them! I’m sure, if they could they would also represent the two million who lost their jobs last year.
Did you catch this quote from my 2nd posting? “In a statement Thursday night, the union said it was ‘prepared to agree that any restructuring plan should ensure that the wages and benefits of workers at the domestic automakers should be competitive with those paid by the foreign transplants.’” It means that the auto works are ready to make sacrifices in order to keep their jobs. They’re just asking that management, who caused this to be necessary in the first place, make a commensurate sacrifice.
To my mind, the UAW is not stonewalling nor ‘holding a gun to its own head.’ It’s about, well, implementing a labor agreement. And based on the cost-benefit analysis here, their requests are more than reasonable – they’re necessary. Desirable even!
If we both agree that a bailout is necessary, then why shouldn’t it benefit those who need it most, the auto workers? Why should it benefit the management that drove them into the ground?
And, again, we can make no conclusions about the poll until we know the wording of the questions. Probably, people oppose the auto bailout for the same reason that they opposed the bank bailout – they knew that it was going to benefit those who drove the organizations into the ground. Wouldn’t it be great if we could give them a bailout that actually helps the middle-class workers? Which is to say, one that would actually help the economy?
As with the bank bailout, the details matter here. What kind of bailout do we want? One that benefits workers? Or one that benefits the management that caused the mess? I’ll just reiterate that the Union is not the problem here – they’re trying to represent the best interests of their workers. Should they not? Should they let them get the shaft like the 2 million unemployed? Or should they represent the 2 million unemployed as well? How would that work? Aren’t they just trying to make America a little better, a little stronger, one worker at a time?
What am I missing?
Comment by aaron — December 12, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Here is a useful list of what we’re dealing with, courtesy of Think Progress. A list of Senators who voted yes to TARP, no to auto bridge loan; or yes to TARP, absent to bridge loan (some of the absences are for legitimate reasons):
Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. Kay Hutchison (R-TX)
Sen. John Isakson (R-GA)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Sen.Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)
In other words, here goes a list of Senate Republicans — including John McCain — who would rather take out a vendetta against unions than work to prevent the loss of a massive industry in a time of recession.
But I suppose, according to Ian’s logic, if these Senate Republicans had viciously asked for the left pinkey of each worker — and nothing of management — the UAW shouldn’t have pushed back ’cause they “aren’t in a negotiation with management over a labor contract.”
Forgive me if I’m not persuaded.
Comment by Lee — December 12, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
Re: your update, Ian. By the position you’re trying to “fight against”, do you mean you’re fighting against people like Borosage who write the following:
Or are you trying to fight against the Republicans who would capriciously cut the income of auto workers in half, just out of their hatred for unions and their members?
Comment by Lee — December 12, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
Sorry if I made it seem as if you were being inconsistent in your support of the bailout. In fact, I know you support both bailouts.
Here’s where you seem to have priorities I don’t understand, Ian.
“I’m angry at unions for putting their own interests ahead of the interests of other Americans footing the bill to keep them working — and I’m suggesting that most Americans see it my way.”
You are angry at unions — who are being asked suddenly at the last minute to basically destroy their workers — but not at Senate Republicans, who for no reason beyond their hatred of unions decided to use the bridge loans as an opportunity to gut the UAW.
Why? Why should the unions shut up and accept it when they’re being arbitrarily knifed by Senate Republicans?
Comment by Lee — December 12, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Did you ever think about the fact that the Upper Midwest — the heart of the Detroit Three — is represented by Democrats and the South — heart of the Japanese & Europeans — is represented by Republicans?
Comment by John — December 13, 2008 @ 11:21 am
There are a lot of people that share the blame for the economic crisis that we are in. Arguing about who is more responsible doesn’t really solve anything for the millions of Americans out of work today. They’re all to blame; The Big Three built cars that not a lot of people want to buy, and completley ignored the fact that people want energy efficient cars; the UAW is also to blame for jacking up wages and benefits for their members so that it is almost impossibe for the car makers to make any sort of profit. I don’t begrudge the UAW for trying to get the best deal possible for their workers, but they have to realize that by squeezing out every dime from the auto makers makes it much more difficult to build a good car that is reasonably priced. If they want to be paid $250/hr that is fine with me, but when the company that they work for goes out of business, don’t act surprised like they didn’t see this coming.Both parties have to make major concessions if this is going to work. The UAW is in a position now where they have to make major concessions to keep their jobs. They can make whatever argument they want aboiut how it is unfair that the banks got bailed out and now they have reduce their wages, and that is unfair. You know what, they’re probably right, it is unfair, but what the hell does that have to do with anything? If the UAW blocks the deal because they don’t think that it’s fair to their workers, I completley understand. But, when they are all out of work don’t complain that no one tried to help them.
Comment by rbates — December 13, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Lee, you write, “You are angry at unions — who are being asked suddenly at the last minute to basically destroy their workers — but not at Senate Republicans, who for no reason beyond their hatred of unions decided to use the bridge loans as an opportunity to gut the UAW.” And you also take me to task for fighting against people like Borosage, who is apparently above reproach because his intentions are honorable.
Now perhaps you understand what I think when I read post after post after post after post after post after post after post by you criticizing Obama, voicing cynicism about him, and occasionally threatening him with political retribution for not doing what you want. Why are you angry at Obama, but NOT angry at the Republicans who make it so difficult for Obama to move forward on these issues? As far as your concerned, slamming people on your side of the political spectrum is totally acceptable and even necessary when YOU’RE the one doing it, but when I start taking aim at lefties I disagree with, I’m betraying the left. How convenient for you.
Second of all, I can’t tell if you’re being serious when you suggest that Republicans are opposed to the auto bailout for no other reason than that they want to gut unions. Is it at all relevant that most Americans — INCLUDING MOST DEMOCRATS — oppose the bailout? As I’ve said before, Republicans don’t need an anti-union agenda to oppose the bailout — all they need is a desire to win reelection. Are you saying that Republican voters are motivated by a desire to gut the unions? If so, where’s this “center-right” nation you’re always talking about?
Second of all, Aaron, you write: “If we both agree that a bailout is necessary, then why shouldn’t it benefit those who need it most, the auto workers? Why should it benefit the management that drove them into the ground?”
This is precisely the sort of statement that makes most Americans hate the idea this bailout. The people who “need it most” are not the auto workers. The purpose of the bailout is not to “benefit management.” At this stage, it would be totally unfair to spend billions in taxpayer dollars benefiting either the auto workers or the management — and the cynical idea that the real purpose of this whole bailout thing is just to benefit the auto workers and the management is precisely what makes many Americans roll their eyes.
A few months ago, they were also rolling their eyes about the bank bailout, saying, “Why should those sleazy overpaid Wall Street jackasses get bailed out while millions of Americans are losing their jobs because of the mess they created?” And people like us who supported that bailout had to make the argument that we’d love for those Wall Street folks to share in the human misery — but for the good of the country, the industry must be rescued.
The purpose of the bailout is to prevent further catastrophe in the American economy, period. If the purpose of the bailout is to save the auto workers, then why on earth wouldn’t we spend that money helping people who have suffered far more than the auto workers have? In my opinion, we have to see this problem through the lens of the 55% OF DEMOCRATS who don’t understand why the auto workers are being bailed out and not them.
Congress shouldn’t concern itself with the issue of whether labor or management will benefit more from the auto bailout — to do so is to betray the millions of Americans who won’t be getting a federal bailout. Congress needs to concern itself with getting a bailout bill passed for the good of the country.
Lee, you ask “Why should the unions shut up and accept it when they’re being arbitrarily knifed by Senate Republicans?”
Again, they are not being arbitrarily knifed. This bailout absolutely contradicts long-standing Republican ideology about laissez-faire capitalism. Let’s not pretend we’re not asking Republicans to do something that goes against their own principles. Part of my point is that this sort of rhetoric from you is utterly unproductive and unconvincing because — I’ll say it again — most people who voted for Barack Obama on Nov 4 are apparently against the bailout. When you accuse Republicans of “arbitrarily knifing” the unions, you are by extension accusing these other pro-Obama Democrats of doing the same thing, and it’s just not true. It gives the impression that you are so blinded by ideology that you cannot imagine how reasonable people could agree to disagree on this issue.
Lee, you write, “Or are you trying to fight against the Republicans who would capriciously cut the income of auto workers in half, just out of their hatred for unions and their members?”
It’s just perverse for you to accuse Republicans of “capriciously cutting the income of auto workers in half”. In fact, Republicans are being asked to spend $14 billion in taxpayer money to keep these people from losing their jobs. How would it be if I asked you to loan me $500,000 to buy a house – and when you refused, I accused you of “capriciously denying me a house, for no other reason than your hatred of me and my family.” You’d think I was nuts, and you would be right. Again, you have to look at this from the perspective of someone who isn’t getting bailed out.
Not everyone in this country is as lucky as those auto workers, whose jobs are apparently insured by the federal government. People who think that’s unfair don’t hate workers or unions — they just want to live in a country where every citizen is valued equally.
Comment by Ian — December 13, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
“Congress shouldn’t concern itself with the issue of whether labor or management will benefit more from the auto bailout.”
It’s unclear to me how you can miss that Congress is doing the opposite of what you advise here. Senate Republicans are not opposing the bailout because of their commitment to laissez-faire economics or their concern for public opposition to the bailout.
As I demonstrated in my comments above — which you seem not to have read — they were more than willing to pass a bailout. What they’re doing is using their leverage on the bailout to push their own, independent agenda.
Americans don’t oppose the bridge loan because they hate unions (polling shows that Americans actually like unions), but because they hate bailouts.
Republicans opposed the bridge loan not because they hate bailouts (they’re more than willing to pass them), but because they hate unions.
As an Republican Congressional action memo published by Countdown puts it:
This [the bridge loan] is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.
I emphasize again: Republicans picked out unions specifically in their dissent to the bailout, not executive compensation or anything else. So you’re right, their being singled out isn’t quite “arbitrary,” but very deliberate.
Senate Republicans did “concern itself with the issue of whether labor or management will benefit more from the auto bailout.”
They were willing to play chicken with the economy to do so. I have to ask you: When the Senate Republican bullies start making demands, where do you draw the line? Is the bailout so important that Democrats should have caved in if the Senate Republicans had said: “We’ll vote yes only if the UAW formally dissolves itself.” My sense is you would have, and would have posted a blog here saying, “It’s too important, we have to do what they say!”
Comment by Lee — December 13, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
You write, “Now perhaps you understand what I think when I read post after post … by you criticizing Obama, voicing cynicism about him, and occasionally threatening him with political retribution for not doing what you want. Why are you angry at Obama, but NOT angry at the Republicans who make it so difficult for Obama to move forward on these issues?”
This makes no sense. For the sake of argument, let’s set up an extremely simplified political spectrum here: left, center, right.
1. Obama gets attacked from the right (say on FISA) and moves to the center. I criticize him from the left. You complain because I am criticizing him for moving rightward. But I think I’m basically correct, the right is wrong, the center is wrong, and Obama is making a mistake. I think the Democrats should stick to their stated values, and let the right take the political heat for the situation. When public opinion polling doesn’t support the Democratic position, Democrats need to make their case to the public.
2. In this case, Democrats get attached from the right (on unions, not the concept of bailouts) and in this case don’t move to the center but hold the line against capricious last-minute disruption (after a reasonable compromise had been hammered out, with White House approval). You take the opportunity to attack Democrats for not caving in, as they usually do, but you have nothing to say about the right for blowing up the legislation. In this case, the left is correct and, in my view, the Democrats did the correct thing. You can’t accept every arbitrary last-minute change that the opposition tries to impose on you. The right must feel the political heat of its obstruction. If public opinion polling is a problem, the Democrats have to make their case to the public.
I criticize the center and the right from the left, because I believe I’m correct and they’re wrong. You consistently criticize me for criticizing the center, even though you then affirm that you share the values of the left. Both #1 and #2 display this dynamic. We’re both being entirely consistent.
Comment by Lee — December 13, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
In fact, by the logic you’re following here, the public shouldn’t hate unions, but like them more, after this legislative episode. In your view it’s the unions that are responsible for there being no bailout — which, you point out, the public dislikes. So the only people who would hate the unions more after this incident are people who supported the bailouts to begin with; most Americans don’t support it, as you rightly point out, so the whole premise of your post is fallatious.
Comment by Lee — December 13, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
It is not my view that the unions are responsible for their being no bailout. You accuse me of not reading your comments, but then you utterly mischaracterize my view. Why do you feel the need to twist my position? Can’t you just argue with the points I’m actually making?
Also, you write, “You take the opportunity to attack Democrats for not caving in, as they usually do, but you have nothing to say about the right for blowing up the legislation. In this case, the left is correct and, in my view, the Democrats did the correct thing.”
I feel you’re admitting here that you really don’t care whether the bailout passes or not. You congradulate the Democrats for letting the bailout die. I, on the other hand, thought a bailout was absolutely necessary and so I am horrified that it failed. That’s the difference between being an ideologue and actually caring about the effects of governance.
Comment by Ian — December 13, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
Once again, this isn’t a binary thing. I think we’re back to the old ‘what kind of bailout do you want’ argument. What good is a bailout that doesn’t actually help Americans? Is it good to spend $15B and t amount of time later still have the Big Three go under? Or is it better to save the $15B and let ‘em die?
As I understand Lee’s argument, he wants the most effective bailout possible and, to his mind, that’s equated with one that respects the needs of Labor. I have to say too, that I’ve shared many of his interpretations of your positions.
To rbates: glad to see you back! You write: “…the UAW is also to blame for jacking up wages and benefits for their members so that it is almost impossibe for the car makers to make any sort of profit.”
Really? Because if the Big Three cut wages to $45/hr – the same as Toyota and Honda – that will cut a whole $800 off the cost of a Big Three car. Some how, I don’t think that will help much.
So how, exactly, is it the UAW’s fault that the Big Three can’t make money? Or, maybe a more fair characterization would be, to what degree is it the fault of the UAW?
The figure above suggests to me that the inefficiencies point more toward Management than Labor.
Comment by aaron — December 13, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
Aaron: where did you read that if the Big Three cut wages to $45/hr that it would only cut $800 off the cost of a car? Because I have seen other numbers showing that the cost would be greater than that. If you could post where I could read about that (by the way, I would have no idea where to find the info that i put forth), I’d like to know if I am incorrect with my assumption that it would be more than $800. Putting that point aside for the moment, I don’t think that this is all the UAW’s fault. As I said at the beginning of my previous post there are a lot of people to pass the blame onto for this mess. Management is just as much to blame, and perhaps even more to blame than the UAW, but you can’t honestly say that you think that UAW members should be making this kind of money. I mean, are they doing something really special that warrants this type of compensation?
Comment by rbates — December 13, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Hi rbates: It’s the two links (1 article, 1 graphic) I posted in comment #6:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/12/10/business/20081210_LEONHARDT_GRAPHIC.html
What I especially liked about the article is that it gives some great insight into where all those costs go. From my point of view, once you take away legacy costs, they’re not actually all that far out of line with foreign auto makers.
A definite shortcoming of the article is that the author fails to explain where the $800 number came from.
It would be interesting to read other estimates and, ideally, to be able to compare their methodologies. I’ll see if I can dig up some more.
Comment by aaron — December 14, 2008 @ 1:14 am
Here’s another interesting calculation:
So, perhaps $800 is more than it would otherwise seem! However, Leonhardt’s article also points out:
So even with, what seems like, large wages (just to reiterate an important point in the graphic, their base wage is actually only about $29/hr — $3 more per hour than Japanese auto makers — and the rest is spent on benefits), they’re still able to sell their cars for quite a bit less.
Comment by aaron — December 14, 2008 @ 2:09 am
Aaron writes, “I have to say too, that I’ve shared many of his interpretations of your positions,” after I criticized Lee for saying it’s my view that the unions are responsible for the bailout failing.
There is simply nothing — nothing — in my original post that suggests I blame unions for the failure of the bailout.
Lee writes, “In your view it’s the unions that are responsible for there being no bailout — which, you point out, the public dislikes.” This is just false. I never said anything that suggests that I blame the unions for the failure of the bailout. I once again challenge both of you to explain why you are mischaracterizing my views.
Meanwhile, Lee, you write, “I criticize the center and the right from the left, because I believe I’m correct and they’re wrong.”
You’re missing my point. When you criticize Obama for “caving” to the center, I am willing to accept that you are telling the truth, and think Obama is making a mistake. So why can’t you do me the same courtesy?
When I criticize the unions for first begging for unfair assistance from the federal government and then balking when they’re asked to take a hit — you’ve implicitly or explicitly accused me of (a) wanting “to dismantle the hard-won protections other workers have gotten” (which is an utterly twisted interpretation of my post) (b) wanting to take money away from UAW and Wal-Mart workers and give it to investment bankers (which is a bizzare interpretation of what I wrote) (c) seeming “not to have much to say” about the “senseless transfer of our tax dollars from you and me to the big banks and their execs” (essentially a non-sequitur ad-hominem attack) (d) “using this bridge loan as a chance to shit on the UAW” (another insulting attack on my motives) (e) “seeming not to be bothered by the behavior of the people bailed out by” the bank bailout (another totally unsusbtantiated attack) (f) “caring more about bank workers than auto workers” (which is ridiculous) (g) of being willing to support a plan that “viciously asked for the left pinkey of each worker” (which is a bizzare non-sequitur) (h) of effectively siding with “the Republicans who would capriciously cut the income of auto workers in half, just out of their hatred for unions and their members” (i) of being not angry at Senate Republicans (j) and of not reading your comments.
I do read your comments. I am angry at Senate Republicans. I am not responsible for cutting union salaries in half, and neither is Congress — any more than they’re responsible for the nearly two million salaries that EVAPORATED over the past 12 months. I would never ask union workers to cut off their pinky fingers. I do not care more about bank workers than auto workers. I AM bothered by the behavior of the Wall Street folks who were bailed out. I am not using the bridge loan as an excuse to shit on the UAW. I would not support the “senseless transfer of our tax dollars from you and me to the big banks and their execs.” I do not support taking money away from working people and giving it to investment bankers. And I do not want to dismantle the hard-won protections other workers have gotten.
In fact, I do care about working people. I care about this country. And I am entitled to express my honest opinion that the unions made a mistake when they turned down an offer by Congress to spend $14 billion in taxpayer dollars to save their jobs. By mischaracterizing my views, challenging my motives, and implying that my heart is in the wrong place, you are trying to enforce a sort of discipline on this site where nobody can criticize unions at all. The fact that my criticism is sincere — that I honestly believe in what I’m saying — makes no difference.
I believe that it’s unfair for the government to spend $14 billion saving the jobs of workers at three auto companies while millions of Americans lose their jobs, their health care, their homes, their dreams to send their kids to college — and the federal govt does nothing to help them. As a proud liberal, I think the government should do more to make health care, housing and education available to people so they can lose their jobs without losing everything.
You write, “Senate Republicans are not opposing the bailout because of their commitment to laissez-faire economics or their concern for public opposition to the bailout. … As I demonstrated in my comments above — which you seem not to have read — they were more than willing to pass a bailout. What they’re doing is using their leverage on the bailout to push their own, independent agenda.”
What do you mean when you write “in my comments above”? Are you referring to your list of Republicans who supported TARP and then didn’t support the auto bailout? These Republicans weren’t “more than willing” to pass a bailout. They were willing — and only barely. You write that these Republicans are using their leverage to pass their own, independent agenda. This “leverage” that they are using is their official position as duly elected members of Congress. When you refer to their “independent agenda,” you’re implying that these Republicans care more about destroying unions than they care about what’s best for the American economy.
Would you say the same for the 55% of Democrats who don’t support the auto bailout? Do they also presumably care more about destroying unions than about the economy? Or could it be that these Democrats don’t actually think a bailout is necessary?
Comment by Ian — December 14, 2008 @ 4:24 am
Lee, you write, “They were willing to play chicken with the economy to do so. I have to ask you: When the Senate Republican bullies start making demands, where do you draw the line? Is the bailout so important that Democrats should have caved in if the Senate Republicans had said: “We’ll vote yes only if the UAW formally dissolves itself.” My sense is you would have, and would have posted a blog here saying, “It’s too important, we have to do what they say!”
In my view, the only reason to support a bailout is because a bailout is absolutely necessary for the sake of the economy as a whole. But in your view, there’s something even more important than passing the bailout, and that’s standing up to the “Republican bullies.” Now if you had to choose between doing something that is absolutely necessary for the good of the American economy and standing up to the Republican bullies, you’d apparently choose standing up to the Republican bullies. Which is horrifying. Or, you don’t actually think the bailout it absolutely necessary for the good of the economy – but you still support the unions in their effort to compel the federal govt to spend $15 billion in taxpayer dollars saving their jobs. Which is even more horrifying.
Comment by Ian — December 14, 2008 @ 4:35 am
I think one source of our misunderstanding is this: I think the bailout is necessary but that the sky isn’t going to fall if it’s not passed. It need not be “absolutely necessary” for me to support it, just necessary.
As for you itemized list of attacks on you, it’s very misleading, and a full response is not worth the time it would take me to do it.
Two examples:
#1) you say, “you’ve implicitly or explicitly accused me of… using this bridge loan as a chance to shit on the UAW.”
Perhaps it wasn’t entirely obvious from context, but I am accusing Republicans of using the bridge loan to shit on the UAW, not you.
#2) “you’ve implicitly or explicitly accused me of… caring more about bank workers than auto workers” (which is ridiculous).
This was a response to your ridiculous question to me, “Why should I care more about union workers than non-union workers?” Implying that anyone who supports the bridge loan cares about union workers more than non-union workers. My purpose in asking the question was to highlight how ridiculous your question was.
*
You seem to be turning this into a personal conversation. I have no interest in having that conversation. I don’t care how I make you “feel” or how you make me “feel.” I care about the facts of this situation and making sure they’re not misrepresented. I always assume you’re telling the truth.
As I said in the more recent post, the apparent source of our political disagreement is that I think there was a line that Corker crossed, you seem to think that there was no line Corker could have crossed. (Or you think that there was a line and Corker didn’t cross it?)
Am I wrong?
Let’s continue the conversation in your more recent posting.
Comment by Lee — December 14, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
I certainly don’t mean to mischaracterize your views.
When you make comments such as “This isn’t about implementing labor contracts, this is similar to the union holding a gun to its own head and saying ‘Give me what I want, or I’ll kill myself and everybody else here.’ Screw them. Why do they deserve to get what they want when nearly two million American workers had to accept job loss?” I guess I interpret that as blaming the union. My apologies if I misunderstood you.
It’s a good point though, that you make. The union faces the choice: accept cuts, or unemployment. Obviously, they should accept cuts. But, should they also allow crippling conditions on their ability to negotiate in the future? It seems to me that the union is over a barrel and have already accepted reasonable concessions. To my mind, what the Republican minority was doing was exploitative. Does it necessarily warrant blocking a (supposedly) vital bailout? I guess I’m not clear. I find what the Minority did to be opportunistic and shady.
Personally, I would prefer to see the bailout passed with the concessions Labor has already agreed to and without the time-line, and other conditions, that the Minority wants to impose.
Now, just out of curiosity, have you found the source of that CNN poll that you continue to cite? Because, until I have the original poll available, I am inclined to doubt the veracity of that poll – Especially if it came from CNN!
Comment by aaron — December 14, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
To clarify, by “I always assume you’re telling the truth,” I mean I always think you mean what you say. I may disagree with what you say — as I do here — so what you say may not be ‘true,’ which doesn’t mean you’re lying, just that you’re wrong.
Comment by Lee — December 14, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
To Lee, I’m not turning this into a personal conversation. I’m just defending myself.
You called my position “perverse” in your first response to my post. And your sarcastic response to my point about “the unfair, almost exploitative advantage” that union workers receive was similarly aggressive.
I guess I misinterpreted your comment about using the bridge loan as an excuse to shit on the UAW, because I thought it had some basic relevance to my post.
To Aaron: you did indeed misunderstand me. My point wasn’t that the unions were killing the legislation — my point was that the unions were apparently trying to kill the legislation. I had no idea when I wrote that line that the unions had actually done a great deal to kill the legislation.
And Lee, you write, “
This was a response to your ridiculous question to me, “Why should I care more about union workers than non-union workers?” Implying that anyone who supports the bridge loan cares about union workers more than non-union workers. My purpose in asking the question was to highlight how ridiculous your question was.”
I SUPPORT THE AUTO BAILOUT! So OBVIOUSLY I never intended to suggest that anyone who supports the bridge loan cares more about union workers than non-union workers. My “ridiculous question” wasn’t ridiculous at all, and your response was a bizzare attack on my motives. Which is not what this blog should be about.
Comment by Ian — December 14, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
We should probably move this conversation over to the newest posts, but you write, “To Lee, I’m not turning this into a personal conversation. I’m just defending myself” and “your response was a bizzare attack on my motives.”
This latest response is indicative of what I’m talking about when I say you’re trying to “personalize” the conversation. You think this conversation is about “[your]self” and “[your] motives.” I don’t, and I agree that such things are “not what this blog should be about.” If I ever gave the impression that I meant to attack your motives or person, I apologize.
My attack was not on your motives or your person but on your characterization of the situation — which I think is incorrect, for reasons stated above, at length. What motivates you is an irrelevant question from my perspective as a political commentator. If you were a computer algorithm whose “motivation” was producing sentences of a certain type, your output — those sentences — would be equally incorrect, and I would be equally uninterested in your motivation.
In the spirit of constructive engagement, I summarized the differences between our positions as follows:
I ask again, is this right or wrong? If it’s wrong, why?
Comment by Lee — December 14, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
I may have misinterpreted your comments as an attack on my motives.
You wrote above, “We made no demands of them and no requirements. On this horrible malfeasance — and senseless transfer of our tax dollars from you and me to the big banks and their execs — you seem not to have much to say.”
When you wrote that I “seem not to have much to say,” about horrible malfeasance, I interpreted that as an attack on my motives. Why was I wrong?
You write, “But you seem not to be bothered by the behavior of the people bailed out by #1.” Again, I interpreted that as you calling me out for my motives. Why was I wrong?
You write, “BTW, if you want to help workers, help them unionize. Doing so increases their wages and gives them the collective barganing power to acheive better work packages.”
The implication of your question is that I might not actually want to help workers. I had said earlier in my post that I didn’t think labor unions were the best way to help Americans, which includes workers. For you to make your suggestion conditional — as if there was some question as to what I really want — and then make the most basic argument in favor of unions is snarky and disrespectful, I feel.
As for the question of a “line,” I agree that the union workers shouldn’t be forced to work for nothing. or to sign a loyalty oath, or to sacrifice their pinky fingers. I disagree that they shouldn’t be forced to accept the conditions in the Corker amendment. Is that clear?
Comment by Ian — December 14, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
1. My point about malfeasance was that the moment one contextualizes Senate Republican opposition in terms of their support for the first bailout, their anti-bailout position comes to seem deeply disingenuous. It just seemed surprising to me that your post didn’t mention that important fact.
2. Re: helping workers. You wrote: “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?” I was answering this question. My answer was no, it’s not better, not fairer. I responded as so: “[I]f you want to help workers, help them unionize. Doing so increases their wages and gives them the collective barganing power to acheive better work packages.
How you can interpret my answer to your question as an attack on your motives is beyond baffling. You asked, shouldn’t we abandon unions and focus on the welfare state? I answered, No, if you want to help unions, we should grow unions. You respond: How dare you attack my motives! Your motives had nothing to do with the original conversation. “Want” is not a moral term, it’s an intentional term. As in, if you want to avoid heartburn, stop drinking so much alcohol.
Comment by Lee — December 14, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Sorry, typo: If you wanted to help workers….
Comment by Lee — December 14, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
Lee, I really don’t like it that this conversation has deteriorated to this point. And I may have misinterpreted your response when you said, “If you want to help workers…”
But can you acknowledge the sincerity and thoughtfulness of the argument I was trying to make, and pay it the attention it deserves? I understand that unions help workers negotiate better pay and benefit packages. My point was that perhaps a better way for liberals to try to ensure that American workers have a high standard of living would be to fight for universal health care, free education, cheaper housing, etc. This is another way to help workers, isn’t it? I mean, you may think the best way to help workers is to support unions, and I think the best way to help them is to provide a social safety net that gives workers more freedom to leave their jobs, to work for less money, etc.
This is an argument that deserves a more thoughtful response than merely a restatment of how unions work. You disagreed with me, but provided no reasons for your disagreement beyond a simple definition of how unions work. In the context of your comments about my “perverse” opinions, I interpreted your glibness as an attack on my motives, and for that I must apologize.
You also write, “My point about malfeasance was that the moment one contextualizes Senate Republican opposition in terms of their support for the first bailout,their anti-bailout position comes to seem deeply disingenuous. It just seemed surprising to me that your post didn’t mention that important fact.”
So let me get this straight: Because Republicans supported the TARP bailout bill — a $700 billion bill intended to protect our entire global financial system from collapsing, bringing on unprecendented devastation — these same Republicans must logically be similarly inclined to support an auto bailout — a $15 billion bailout of a single industry? And that anyone who supports the first bill and opposes the second is “deeply disingenuous”?
Republicans aren’t robots who must support either all bailouts or no bailouts. They can support one bailout and oppose another.
Either way, it isn’t a “fact” that “their anti-bailout position comes to seem deeply disingenuous.” It’s your opinion. You say it “seemed surprising” to you that I didn’t make the same point in my post.
Why did it surprise you? Because even the most simple-minded jackass would agree with your opinion?
I have good friends who supported the financial bailout but don’t support the auto bailout. Their views aren’t “deeply disingenuous” or stupid. They simply believe the first bailout was necessary, and the second bailout is unnecessary.
Anyway, you’re a brilliant man and I love you very much. (I love you too Aaron, and you John, and you rbates, and all of you!) I think you are, in general, a very civil and constructive blogger. So I apologize if my defensiveness has become a distraction. Hopefully, we can keep the next blog clean of these sorts of distractions, as you suggested.
Comment by Ian — December 14, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
By the way, I didn’t mean to suggest in my post above that you are obligated to respond to my arguments. It doesn’t bother me if you ignore my arguments. My point is that a glib response is worse than no response at all, from my perspective.
Comment by Ian — December 14, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
There is perhaps an inherent problem in communicating via blogs. You have to be selective and can’t go into everything. I think your arguments are very much worth debating and investigating–and I try to be respectful even when I disagree, though I also try to be energetic in my replies.
You posed an either/or choice between social safety nets and unions. I would say and have sadi: we need both.
As for being disingenuous, it’s not supporting one bailout and not supporting the other that is the whole story of Republican disingenuous-ness, but it’s part of a context where the “stumbling block” for them was that the bridge loan didn’t penalize unions harshly enough soon enough.
Which indeed seems “perverse” to me when considering the fact that unions weren’t the immediate cause of the financial/credit crisis. Your friend’s reasons for supporting one but not the other bailout need not be disingenuous. But my argument is that Corker & co.’s are.
This is a mere taste of how the Republican minority is going to try to govern starting in 2009: blow up every legislative initiative that comes before them. It’ll get ugly, I suspect.
Comment by Lee — December 14, 2008 @ 10:34 pm