SEARCH
Economic Blackmail
 |
|
Corporate opponents of workers’ freedom to form unions repeatedly have shown they are not interested in the welfare of their employees or any of the pseudo-lofty ideals they cite while fighting the Employee Free Choice Act.
Now, they’ve made clear they will do anything—even destroy jobs, communities and harm the U.S. economy—to ensure that more American workers do not have a voice on the job. (And this just in—they’re now using Joe the Plumber as an anti-Employee Free Choice Act spokes-idiot. That guy can’t seem to keep a job.)
In Wisconsin, a local economic development official in Eau Claire County said a project was derailed because of the proposed Employee Free Choice Act. According to today’s Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, the unnamed project would have brought a
$50 million investment to Eau Claire County in the next five years, along with creating up to 800 full-time jobs, Brian Doudna, executive director of the Eau Claire Area Economic Development Corp., said in a news release Wednesday evening. Construction was expected to begin this year. The first employees were to begin work in early 2010, with about 100 new jobs being created. [snip]
‘Proposed federal and state legislation, as shown by this company’s decision, can impact location decisions and limit the private sector’s ability to create quality jobs for Eau Claire area residents. This is especially disappointing given the condition of our current national, regional and local economies.’
Yo, Brian: What’s “disappointing” is the blackmail screaming out here. The threat by employers to destroy the community they theoretically are invested in just so those employers don’t have to actually talk with workers across a bargaining table about what might make for a safe workplace, what they need to support their families and retire without working until they die.
That’s bad enough. But here’s the kicker:
Doudna said if the bill is approved, the project will not occur—at least not in the U.S.
Blackmail, big time. In short, U.S. corporations are saying: Give us unlimited control over the lives of our workers, or we’ll go to another nation where “human rights” is a dirty phrase and “workers’ rights” even worse.
The local Chamber of Commerce’s response is to attack government.
Bob McCoy, president of the Eau Claire Area Chamber of Commerce, said the government essentially is stopping growth in the Chippewa Valley.
“I think it’s one of those situations when the state starts trying to generate additional revenue or put certain criteria on business, it can reverse itself,” he said. “There’s a potential for the Employee Free Choice Act, and (businesses) can’t afford those types of consequences.”
Because the Wall Street way worked so well for us, huh, Bob?
There’s a lot to be said about corporate greed fueling the opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. But as the nation’s $4 billion annual union-busting industry shows, more than money is involved. When corporations are willing to spend far more to fight unionization than they would spend on a unionized workforce, when they are willing to rip out the economic guts of the community—then something seriously is wrong with the culture of those who call the economic shots in this nation. Because the corporate threat screaming from Eau Claire is not just blackmail. It’s anti-worker. Anti-you. Anti-me. Anti-American.
This is a cross-post from Firedoglake.
 |
Become a Fan on Facebook |  |
Follow Us on Twitter |  |
Subscribe to YouTube |  |
Subscribe to Blog RSS | ||||
28 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Joe the Plumber as an anti-Employee Free Choice Act spokes-idiot. That guy can’t seem to keep a job.)
Joe the Plumber Now is Joe the Union Buster
http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2009/03/12947.php
“The public loves Joe the Plumber,” the spokesperson, Mary Ellen Burke, claimed to me. “They see him as a role model.”
Asked whether Joe the Plumber had any particular knowledge or expertise about EFCA that might explain the decision to enlist him, Burke said that he was being enlisted to provide a “grassroots perspective” and “the working perspective” on the measure.
Tags: Americans for Prosperity, Employee Free Choice Act, EFCA, Free Choice Act, Free Choice, Joe the Plumber, Employee Free Choice, Against EFCA, Union Busting, Joe the Union Buster
This economic blackmail and treason have been going on since the Reagan regression, beginning 30 yars ago. It’s clear employers and investors in this country are implementing a master-slave labor relations system.
This is not blackmail – it is a logical decision given the potentiual consequences of this legislation. Many of my corporate members express the same plans to close US factories if this legislation passes. You may not like these views and you may name call them – but they are real and they are free market business decisions.
Corporate America is being honest and in an unprecedented way united in its intense opposition to EFCA. This is another fact.
Here is one more. The union side is not being equally honest. Latest example is the total distortion of the Wall Street Journal comments on card check. (read the editorial page of today’s WSJ to understand the scope of the union deception on what they said). Kinda of like taking a movie review that says the movie is phenomenally bad and turning that into a quote that the reviewer said the move is “phenomenal”. Shame on you! I hope every reader of this blog reads the entire sentence that is being partially quoted and learn about the union’s “ethical” leadership on this issue.
Same logic about jobs. It is a simple fact that EFCA will cost jobs – see story above. Yet the unions deny this.
But thank you for uniting the business community, pushing this issue when we have the lesson of Detroit before us and doing it when we have the worst recession of our lifetime. Even with Democrats controlling everything and their self-admitted desire to please you at any cost – you will not win.
-
Gary Shapiro is right, in a sense. You can create a lot more “jobs” if you don’t have to pay the workers or provide them with any benefits. Just look at China or any of the other 3rd world countries that Mr. Shapiro and his ilk want this country to become. Problem is that, then, nobody here would have any money to buy anything, so nobody would make any money. Henry Ford understood this; why is it so hard for today’s capitalists who become socialists when they run to the government for money because nobody can afford to buy their products?
Gary,
I, for one, truly appreciate you sharing your widely held views on the honesty and unity of Corporate America regarding EFCA, on a UNION blog-site. Many of my union friends often express concern over the way such “good factory jobs” came to be so “good” to begin with. As you have conveniently forgotten, they didn’t start out that way. American manufacturing plants were horrible places to work before unions were formed by their Workers. Fair wages, health care, pensions, and job security were equitably negotiated into their contracts; while, agencies like OSHA, EPA, and the Wage & Hour Law Division of the US Labor Dept. were formed as direct results of the political action from these Workers. The standard of living improved for both Union and non-union American workers and taxpayers.
I’m troubled that you would find fault with perceived Union spin on WSJ quotes while simultaneously promoting the notion that factory jobs in the US are as great as they currently are, out of the sheer goodness from Corporate America’s heart. The notion that some-how the rise in compensation for workers will keep pace with their work-place productivity without the aid of a bargaining agent is particularly hypocritical. “The greed of Corporate America is rivaled only by their HONESTY?” Now there’s a quote I suppose business interests could repackage as, “Corporate America is honest.” The recent Wall Street bail-outs are certainly proof positive that Corporate America owns the moral high ground for trustworthiness.
Here is the actual and factual definition of blackmail:
black·mail [blák màyl]
1. use of secrets to compel: the act of forcing somebody to pay money or do something by threatening to reveal shameful or incriminating facts about him or her.
2. coercion: unfair threatening or incriminating of somebody, as a way of achieving a result
Upon closer examination, the coercion portion of the definition seems to fit the original article above quite well; don’t you think?
Moreover; your “logic” is very logical, if you are of an irrational mindset. You tout that Corporate America has the right to provide or remove jobs here and overseas as a free market business decision. JUST WHO, ABOVE ALL, PROVIDES THEM WITH THE LUXURY OF ENJOYING SUCH AN OPTION?!? Wouldn’t you agree that upon removal of American jobs, the US taxpayer reserves their right to withhold military security to such businesses; insofar as respecting THEIR wishes to withdraw from AMERICA? I should think so. Well, as an American taxpayer, wouldn’t you be opposed to your tax dollars being spent to defend and protect FOREIGN interests with loyalties such as these? I know I would. I certainly don’t wish for the blood of my children to purchase protection for corporate interests that openly espouse to drive down the standard of living of the very Americans they swore to protect.
What a great way to reduce the Federal deficit of the United States!!! By slashing defense budget allocations for military protection of these foreign interests, we can help balance our Federal budget. Meanwhile; we’ll see how well those factories survive the bribes, terror threats to their management personnel, and REAL blackmail from a government like Mexico’s without the security provided by US taxpayers, better known to Unions as workers, and to politicians as voters.
“You will not win.” …huh… Good luck my Corporate mirror; because luck is what you’ll require. It’s game-on, now! The moral integrity of our Nation is at stake and it’s survival is amalgamated to the survival of the AMERICAN LABOR MOVEMENT.
Does it seem odd that a person can join the Army by signing a card but can’t join a union by signing a card?
First of all its obvious this developer planned on doing his development using day laborers, and was never intending to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement to begin with!
The anti EFCA position is a typical ruse and so what else is new? Get real these people who are against the Emplyee Free Choice Act don’t work for a living: they live off the work of those who do work for a living: a parasite by any other name is still just that a parasite!
In NYC we have the theme against the BCTU called affordable housing: build it with non tax paying day laborers and no gauranteed prevailing wages for any Trade. What is going on in Wisconsin is going on here on the East Coast as well and on the West Coast and all over this country.
Tell us someting new!
I would ask the President and Congress to yank this district’s stimulus money if they go through with this threat…I suggest everyone who reads this to find out who the Congressman and Senators are in that state and district and send them an e-mail about this.
This sounds like children who don’t get their way,”If you pass this bill I’ll take my jobs and go home!”
If anyone has ever worked for a large corporation this kind of terrorist mentality does not come as a surprise. History tells us that when it comes to Justice, Freedom and the American way, most of the corporate class come across like the neo-fascists that they truly are!
Class warfare is something that they began when they lynched the first labor organizer, beat workers for going to union meetings and when they sent in either the cops or goons to break up pro-union rallies!
As a 37 year veteran of the labor movement nothing that these corporate parasites does surprises me one bit. My question is when is the government going to start protecting our rights??
Well, no one said that it would be easy.
We don’t have the deep pockets of the corporate interests and the right wing, but we still have our voices.
We all need to speak out in support for the EFCA on any and all public-access TV or radio; we need to write letters to the editor of our newspapers.
What’s the name of the company? I say, if they want to go out of the Country, then let them. If they want to import their products back to the US, tax them. If they’re currently getting Federal tax breaks, they should be eliminated. What’s the name of the company? Are they afraid to make their name and complaint public? If they can’t survive in a Country who workforce is only 7% union, then it’s not worth having them here. Tell’m to walk.
For all the corporate supporters and Joe the Plumber folks out there you forget one thing. We the citizens or better yet WE THE PEOPLE and middle class workers in this great country have one trick up our sleaves. We have the right to not purchase or use the products that are being used to blackmail us. So I suggest that after the company that is threatening to pull out of Wisconsin if they were even going to build there to begin with leave. We boycott them and refuse to purchase their goods or products. BUY AMERICAN that is the answer.
Amen, brother. One of the bumper stickers on my truck reads, “Got Patriotism? Buy American.” Once, I had a DJ of a local talk radio show basically run me off the road to learn where I got it. USWA represents this printshop’s labor.
http://www.tigereyedesign.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TED&Product_Code=BS9333
Every candidate running for public office that appears before any endorsement screening committee of Labor should be asked if it’s ok to put one on their vehicle before they leave. I donated 100 to my local Labor Council for just such purposes.
Additionally, since we are on the subject of PATRIOTISM; I stumbled across an article written by some guy going by the name of Gary Shapiro that basically argues; Patriotism to the HOMELAND of the United States is simply a quaint little wicked notion better known as protectionism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-shapiro/obamas-panama-opportunity_b_177421.html
There are numerous problems riddled throughout this piece (of you know what), but I am particularly moved by the passage:
We face a pivotal decision: Does the United States promote policies that lead to domestic job creation, or do we pursue a protectionist agenda that sets an example of our Latin American allies that shuns the economic freedoms we have long sought?
Upon careful analysis, I find faults with the structure of the premises in the question. First; this Gary fellow, rightfully, acknowledges that domestic job creation IS possible through government policy promotion; else he wouldn’t have provided it as an option for such a pivotal decision. Second; in order to pursue domestic job creation with such policies a certain level of protectionism (or patriotism) is assumed to be necessary should the answer to the first part of the question be, YES; therefore, Gary used the WRONG CONJUNCTION when framing the second half of the question. It should be AND, not OR. Try reading it, again. That one little contortion of the language misconstrues what is rightfully a singular ideal into two separate ones; whereby, destroying the major premise, minor premise, conclusion structure of deductive reasoning and yields an illogical rationale, or extremely logical views of an irrational nature.
It’s like I said before; Gary’s “logic” is very logical, if you are of an irrational mindset.
Personally, I am most interested in our new Secretary of State’s position on the Patriotism/protectionism debate seeing as she employed Mark Penn as her Presidential campaign’s Chief Strategist. Penn was hired by the government of Columbia to lobby the US Congress for PASSAGE of the Columbian Free Trade Agreement. His public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller recently made news, perhaps you’ve seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xVsYc-y7IY
Suffice it to say, I am less than comfortable with the idea that such loyalties can be compartmentalized. The real question is; are you an American or an Internationalist? I wish some reporter would become intrepid enough to get Secretary Clinton to respond, for the record, exactly where her loyalties lie; so we can better gauge the State Department’s future role in denouncing FTA’s in favor of domestic manufacturing. Is she going to be a team player with America’s stimulus package, AS PASSED, or is she going to resist certain provisions contained within it with creative interpetations? If you’ll recall, her husband gave us NAFTA!
Did anyone hear about FedEx threatening to cancel a Boeing order if EFCA passes?
And to Gary Shapiro: EFCA will not eliminate secret ballot union elections. It just gives the workers the choice if they want secret ballot or card check. So what’s so scary about that? Afraid your workers will choose card check?
Should Fed-Ex decline to make good on capital investments, like aircraft orders, so as to keep pace with market expansion in the air freight industry; it will almost certainly result in a loss to the market share they currently enjoy. Fed-Ex’s construction contracts for Boeing planes may very well have provisions to accommodate an expanding and/or contracting air freight market. The guys at Boeing are not ignorant when it comes to a customer wanting to back out of a deal after they have entered into an agreement. Boeing doesn’t enter such contracts without doing some basic verifiable research on their customers. (They are not the leaders in their industry by accident.)
CONSUMER DEMAND, service pricing, marketing strategies, and business cash flow for Fed-Ex’s air freight services will be the determining forces responsible for increases and/or decreases in aircraft orders from Boeing or anywhere else. Pressure from Fed-Ex’s investors should force sound business decisions from its management. In spite of what Fed-Ex executives may claim; economic principles will ultimately be responsible for any increases and/or decreases in the size of their aircraft fleet, not the Employee Free Choice Act.
Any loss to Fed-Ex’s market share will be a result of poor management. UPS and other competitors will be ready to increase their aircraft orders from Boeing should Fed-Ex drop the ball. So; if you’re a Machinist at Boeing…relax just a little bit over Fed-Ex. The greater concern is the economy inherited from Republicans.
As to the economic blackmail of the anti-New Deal corporate greedheads: Bring ‘em on. It’s time to call their bluff. We are many and our voices are powerful. The preamble to the Constitution says: “We the People,” not we the corporations. Enough already. Out with the Economic Royalists who have ruined the working and middle classes of this country.
This most certainly is blackmail and to Gary Shapiro who stated otherwise with his dispicable accusations, you are totally wrong with every aspect of your comment.
It will Not make things more expensive for corporations to operate and if they wish to supposedly pull out and go overseas then its time for our government to intervene and start taxing everything that is made overseas just as they do with our goods.
Wake up Gary and realize this: 70% of Americans support the EFCA and 71% said they would join a union with out the fear of retailiatory measures corporations use to disway people from voting for representation. Our goods are taxed to the equivalent of 30 to 35% whereas foreign contries have an open door to our markets ranging from 2% to 12% on imported goods!!!! You call that fair trade???
Also Gary I wrote Arlen Specter yesterday and voiced my outrage over his flip flop of endorsing the EFCA to now wanting to vote against it, ala flip flops of John McCain, and also voiced my major disapporval of Senator Richard Shelby and called him out to debate the pros and cons of unions. I haven’t heard from neither because both are wrong and they know it.
Abraham Lincoln quoted: ” All that serves Labor, serves the Nation. All that harms is TREASON. If a man tells you he trusts America yet fears labor, he is a fool. There is no America without Labor, and to flee the one is to rob the other. ” Even Theodore Roosevelt, the staunchest of Conservatives, changed his tune about Labor when he realized the appalling living and working conditions people had to put up with. He started fighting for workers rights instead!!!!!!
Also Janet is totally correct with her reply. Way to go Janet. My hats off to you.
Dead on, my friend!!! Keep those letters rolling.
Honest Abe and Teddy Bear were two of my favorite republicans, too. I’m certain they would hardly recognize what the Party has been transformed into.
Don’t let folks like Gary get to you! Chin up and take pride in standing for the things in life that are good, right, just, worthy, and noble.
There are many more GaryShapiro’s lurking out there; but I suspect this one is the president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, the U.S. trade association representing some 2,200 consumer electronics companies and owning and producing the world’s largest tradeshow for consumer technology; the International CES.
Google is an incredible resource for obtaining publicly posted information. Then again…I could be wrong. Maybe someone else out there has just picked that name at random to blog under. Because there are numerous GaryShapiro’s and the previous one I referred to is far too brilliant to do something as stupid as posting his real name on a Union blog-site; I have got to be wrong.
It really makes one wonder, though, why somebody would post comments assuming a Corporate position against EFCA with a name like Gary Shapiro about an article written by Tula on an un-named project in Wisconsin? 2+2=4; right?
There is most likely no relationship whatsoever between the un-named project and the consumer electronics industry. Like there’s no relationship between a construction project being canceled and economic recession we find ourselves in the midst of. Blaming EFAC for such a hypothetical project failure, into which hundreds of man-hours have been theoretically invested not to mention cash, could never be rightfully construed as BLACKMAIL; abstractly speaking, of course, could it Mr. Shapiro?
Corporate America would never really lie to, harass, intimidate, or stalk via surveillance employees seeking the advantages of collective bargaining that EFCA would make so much easier to obtain; utilizing the same sneaky shenanigans described in the hypothetical situation, above. They are an honest bunch.
Touché; Mr. Shapiro. Perhaps we don’t need passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, but I’d feel a lot better if we did. Thanks for uniting the Labor community and forwarding a real or imaginary rationale for the passage of EFCA!
But there again…what would I know? I’m just a delivery-boy.
Gary,
I am a steamfitter with 33 years in the union. Being a union hand has given me the ability to raise 2 great kids. It allowed my wife to stay home with our children when they were young. My medical benefits have kept me and my family from using taxpayers money to finance our medical bills. And now, I am able to retire with a decent pension, which means we will stand on our own two feet. Nobody will have to pay anything to support MY family. Me and my union have done that. I am very proud of this! Guess I am some kind of criminal eh? Gary, you and your warped view of right and wrong can go to hell!
Perhaps it truly is time for the workers to own and control the means of production. Being separated into a working class and an owning class obviously is not working well. Those who own the means of production are concerned with their profits and not the welfare of the rest of the people. Those of us who actually produce the wealth are nothing more than cogs in the machine’s wheels. We are discarded at the owners whim.
So many inaccuracies.
First, I have never denied who I am – I first posted in response to a AFL CIO website column quoting me and everyday I get the same AFL CIO email as all of you and the inaccuracies are such that posting is irresistible. If AFL CIO did not want me posting they could remove my name from their daily email or could deny my postings. I am impressed that AFL CIO chooses to let my differing opinions be posted. It shows strength.
Second, as to the implied and not so implied threats I am getting. My dad was a union leader and union advocate until he died two years ago. But he was an American and a father and a veteran first and taught me to express my opinion in this country without fear. So stop with the threats.
Those of you commenting on how wonderful your union is – and what changes unions caused in the laws are all accurate. Unions did change the laws and created a better country for all of us.
My beef is not with unions, but with the proposed change in the law which effectively takes away a worker’s right to privacy in the important decision to unionize. You can quibble that the law does not eliminate the private choice – but can someone explain to me how this privacy right would be exercised in reality when the union holds 50% plus of card checks? And how can management and the owners give a contrary view if they don’t even know a union is forming?
The other unacceptable proposal in the law is government bureaucrat’s setting working conditions. Just what rights do the owners of a business, who put all the money up to start the business have? None under this absurd proposal.
I also use the example of Detroit (I spend a lot of time there). I tried so hard to buy a big three car lately. I test drove and wanted to support our domestic industry. Ultimately, I did not because the cars were more expensive and did not have what I wanted.
Obviously, I am not alone. Americans have voted against Detroit cars. And while both management and workers will take the fall – the fact is that these cars are well made, just not what Americans want and more expensive. Why are they more expensive? In part because job banks and platinum health care makes them more expensive.
Unions have not been good in Detroit keeping car companies there competitive. Fact!
Mr. Shapiro,
I have read this thread and there was nobody participating in this discussion that was threatening you or your personal safety, implied or otherwise. I am not sure why you came to that conclusion. To my knowledge, no one has ever used threats against someone else on this blog. The AFL-CIO moderator would not allow that at all.
Now to my reply: If management doesn’t know that a union is in the process of being formalized, that’s the management/owner’s problem. If they are not fully engaged in a working relationship with the “common man” in their company, then it shouldn’t come as a surprise when a union is being formed. They can still have the right to express any opposition to forming a union, but they won’t be able to coerce, intimidate, or fire the “common man” anymore to get the others to vote against the formation of a union once the EFCA becomes law.
By “government bureaucrats”, I’m assuming that you are referring to the US Labor Department? That department has had rules and regulations on the books for decades. They have just been heavily watered down for almost 30 years by union-busting legislation and actions by members of Congress, past and present, as well as the Reagan/Bushes administrations. All companies have to comply with all regulations from various agencies (from OSHA to DOL’s WHD, etc.). If a company is not prepared to comply with all necessary regulations and conditions, then they shouldn’t be open for business to begin with.
You are obviously looking at the EFCA bill from an owner’s point of view, as in “I started this company and I put up all of my money to start my business.” You are coming across as saying that “if they don’t like my way of running things, they can get lost. My decisions regarding how I treat my employees are final and non-negotiable” (it sure sounds like from your sentence that you only have the employer’s interests in mind and no one else). This “it’s my way or the highway” attitude has gotta go, including the hierarchical mentality of management and the possessive nature that owners cling to their companies. They are not going to retain good and loyal employees if they start treating their employees like crap. That’s what companies with a high turnover ratio do to their employees. Employees with great pay, benefits, and a retirement plan should ideally be provided by every company and employees will more than likely stay with their employer. Companies that are unwilling or unable to provide those three important rights for the “common man” in the workplace will provide them after collective bargaining with their newly formed union, thanks to the EFCA.
Gary, Let me begin by saying I’m glad that you take the time to post comments, here. I’m thrilled that you feel comfortable speaking freely anywhere in America, particularly on a Union blog, and I wish to encourage you to continue. I, for one, relish the opportunity to engage in ideological rivalry. I apologize for characterizing your decision to go public with your real name as stupid. I should have picked a word with less negative connotation, like “unwise.” Lastly, I find it infinitely incredible that, subsequent to all the benefits provided to you from a Union home, you would aspire to deny so many others a parallel opportunity.
I chose my remarks carefully so as to not come across, as you characterize, “threatening” because I knew my comments wouldn’t be posted, otherwise. I’m surprised you would confuse “antagonizing” for “threatening.” Any experienced Union Steward worth his salt knows how to antagonize without crossing the line of becoming hostile. As you know, hostile work environments are highly frowned upon by Unions. Your “logic” simply provokes my intellectual anger. Since you are an adult, you should expect to get a thorough pummeling with literary criticism for what most of the readers of this site perceive to be YOUR “inaccuracies.”
Please understand, I have sporadically received telephone threats and pranks, strangers approaching my wife, vandalism to my vehicle, polite questions about how my children (by name) are doing at school while also providing the name of it, etc.; you know, the usual stuff associated with assisting a Union organizing drive. Therefore, I choose to blog under an assumed name for precautionary reasons and only on a site that I trust to protect my identity. I’ve never been arrested, although police have threatened me with such on 3 occasions if I refused to disperse from public places. (Not that you would remember or know of the “Charleston 5” but; I was on the dock that day.)
My father was a Union Steward. Once during a strike, when I was 9 years old, he was the picket-line captain. I would proudly march with my father carrying a sign on the sidewalk, emulating my hero, in order to have an opportunity to spend time with him. I had no idea what organized labor was or anything about my dad’s role in it. However, I’ll never forget the time a man snatched me by my arm and held a gun to my head so his scab girlfriend could exit the worksite without being taunted. Conflicting eyewitness reports led to NO CHARGES BEING FILED.
I will agree to disagree with you, but I still reserve the right to become (thoughtfully) disagreeable should you insist on playing ignorant to the provisions contained within the Employee Free Choice Act. Don’t play coy with me about it! I’ve spent time, on occasion, living it in REAL life. So when Congress hashes over the language within this Bill, it represents more than a mere “academic debate” for me. I strongly believe that everything happens in its own good time, and the time for being polite to charades like yours is over.
Pardon me if you’ve been offended by any of MY rhetoric.
Gary, I live in Michigan, and find that like many Americans, you are out of touch on a few things regarding Detroit car companies and unions. First, let’s take the jobs bank, which for the UAW, is no longer. I don’t know if you are aware that Toyota has its own version of jobs bank? You just never hear anything about it, I suppose because: 1. Toyota plants aren’t UAW and 2. Toyota is still doing alright (however, they have recently asked Japan for govt. assistance as well).
Union wages and benefits are approximately 10% of the cost of the car. However, with unions, you have “legacy” costs to all of those UAW retirees. Now, if we had national health insurance, the UAW wouldn’t have to worry about all these promises they made to loyal employees years ago. I will be curious when the big wave of retirees from foreign car companies comes to pass, how well they take care of their former workers.
I’m curious to know which US cars you tried. Ford Focus and Chevy Malibu are some of the best. But it sounds to me that you, like many Americans, are riding on the misconception from 20 years ago regarding US cars. And that’s the part I don’t know if we can salvage. Even Warren Buffet said, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation, and about five minutes to ruin it.”
I think unions have had very little to do with Detroit being competitive or not. I recently picked up “On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors,” and was disheartened how many of DeLorean’s observations were echoed in a Forbe’s article on GM in December, 2008 (can’t recall the author right off). The majority of problems in both pieces had to do with top management and political decisions, not unions.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
This is such a divisive issue at a time when the nation has to come together. That is perhaps why I am on here and frustrated.
Both sides see this issue as incredibly obvious and yes I see this from an owner’s perspective
First, I run an organization with 150 employees. Our benefits for our employees are generous. (If you care enough you can check our website.).
More significantly, I spend a huge amount of time with owners and ceos and I know how they think. Without exception, big or small company, they view themselves as caring about their employees and agonize over any non-cause firing. They don’t sleep well because they are always thinking about the people responsibilities of their job. Those that are familiar with unions have had varied experiences. Those that are not familiar, do not want unions.
In any case, having spent some time recently on the Hill, I can assure you that Members of Congress are dying to move away from this issue.
Democrat and Republican members agree:
- This has been among the most heavily lobbied issues in their career.
-They are having to deal with both sides and it is causing them a lot of time and angst.
-The sides are far apart and no compromise is appropriate or even possible.
-They have never seen business so united.
-They are concerned about the next election and how what they do on this issue will play out (no matter what their position) given the intensity of both sides.
-Increasingly Democrats are saying this is the wrong time given the challenges of Detroit and the economy. Some Republicans appreciate that this issue is one which clearly differentiates them from Democrats but they are horrified that it would pass and hurt our national competitiveness (yes many people do believe this including me).
The only compromise I see now, is that both sides agree to drop the issue until the economy improves and some type of respected bi-partisan study group look at the issue of union intimidation and whether the present law should change and report back. (this is just my thinking and not the position of any group or company).
I am almost positive this issue is dead for this Congress.
4 minutes of your time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flIb0vMtfXc