Disconnect

[veronica_rich]

I have calmed down somewhat from a couple of nights ago - but not by a lot. And definitely not toward those trying to sinkhole the Big 3 automakers. Besides the obvious need to preserve the fully 1 percent of the American population that would be directly affected by such job losses, I still contend the Republican senators who voted against this bailout are chewing their own feet off to spite their posture - the UAW might support the Democratic Party, but I guarantee you the majority of individual laborers who vote have voted Republican their entire lives, by and large. Management is not the hoi polloi.

However, if those people have any sense, they are reconsidering their support for the GOP in future elections and will instead check out individual candidates before casting a ballot.

This isn't so much about the UAW being asked to make concessions. The UAW would make some concessions; the UAW has made some concessions (just ask GM, at least) in the past. More than once. But why are we not hearing about upper management being asked to make concessions, too? No hired hand needs to make $25 million a year, especially if the company they're running is sucking hard into the ground. I agree with the UAW president, who said it sounds like these GOP senators are not simply trying to get a deal this time - they're trying for a union busting. While there is plenty in history to support the idea that unions can be corrupted, there's even more evidence that government can be corrupted - or, more accurately, that individual officials are corrupt. Do we abolish Congress? Burn down the White House? Bulldoze the Illinois Capitol?

Unions are necessary. Even if you've never been in a union, you probably enjoy benefits obtained by unions at some point in history: minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, health insurance subsidized by your employer, vacation and sick pay, retirement, bonuses. (And if you enjoy none of these in America, well ... I don't think it's a coincidence that unions have been on the decline, by and large, for several years, and working conditions keep getting shittier - do you?) Perhaps unions need to be revamped or restructured for a new century - but not abolished.

In short: Quit being asshats. Especially those of you from states that depend on the Big 3. Yeah, YOU. I think something happens to a person's logic once they get inside the Beltway, I swear to Dog. I would hope our incoming team for 2009 would be immune from that, but I know not all of them will be.

Comments

[roguedemon.livejournal.com]

I already commented on your earlier post, but I feel moved to reiterate -- you're right. I'm sure the unions aren't perfect, no organization is, but without them around, the whole idea of workers rights will disappear. There may be some jobs where workers are treated well without unions, and not as well with unions. However, without somebody watching out for workers, conditions are left up to the individual employers. Some are scrupulous, many are not. With the economy the way it is, the ones that are less scrupulous will win out in many industries. They already are. Therefore, the answer is to reform unions where they need reforming, and do whatever we can to keep them. They helps many people get a foothold in the middle class with the insistence on things like decent wages and benefits. Those people are being crowded out now.

And this is from someone whose husband has a good job that is nonunion. He is lucky that he works for a good company, but if something was ever to happen to his company, who knows what conditions he might encounter somewhere else? What kind of health insurance might we end up with? That's the stuff you just never know about in America. I'm always reading about people who transfer around and end up with wildly varying conditions. That's why we need things like unions and universal health care.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

However, without somebody watching out for workers, conditions are left up to the individual employers. Some are scrupulous, many are not. With the economy the way it is, the ones that are less scrupulous will win out in many industries.

That's it precisely. It's like saying the public welfare system (which includes Social Security and Medicare - remember, everybody gets to benefit when they get old, not just those who paid in) has a lot of fat, so it needs to be eliminated. No, it doesn't - it perhaps needs to be overhauled, I would go along with that to an extent, but the amount of good it does outweighs the muck also inherent in it.