By Carter Bundy
Over the last few months, as the problems in Detroit have reached catastrophic levels (and no, that’s not a Lions reference), there has been a curious intensity of anger directed at the United Auto Workers (UAW).
America’s autoworkers have made a good living for decades, largely thanks to their union. They’ve had good health care and a decent retirement, which used to be staples of the American worker’s compensation package, at least at large companies.
Having it both ways
One of the first things conservative union-bashers point to is the cost of health care in the automotive industry. Two questions: First, do they realize that countries like Japan and Germany have health care for all of their people, giving their companies a built-in structural advantage?
You can’t have it both ways: You can’t criticize unions and the Big 3 for providing expensive private health insurance and simultaneously advocate against any kind of health-care reform at the national or state level.
Second, do the union-bashers really fault the unions for trying to get health care for their members? The majority of people, including conservatives, reading this article have health care that is largely paid for by a corporation or taxpayers.
How do you blast people who make cars for a living for having health care from their employer when most of the rest of us do, too? You can’t have it both ways.
A leader who gets it
President-elect Obama was terrific on Meet the Press this weekend. Just hearing any politician use the economic term “moral hazard” correctly, without talking down to anyone or dumbing it down, is incredibly refreshing.
His take was that the unions were going to “have to take a haircut,” but he’s not pushing for them to lose their health care or retirement. In fact, the UAW already agreed to assume responsibility for member retirement in their last contract.
President-elect Obama knows that American workers can’t continue to face unfair trade practices, and also knows that the far-right advocacy of a nearly universally low-wage workforce hurts American business and the overall economy.
Just as conservatives are right that capital needs to be strong and that supply-side economics can generate some growth, so too are liberals right that there needs to be a demand side for the economy to hum. That means good jobs, fair trade and a decent union presence. Hopefully President-elect Obama’s team, including Secretary-designee Richardson, will be pragmatic and recognize the need for balance. Obama himself seems to see both sides.
Common goals
UAW salaries are indeed higher than in non-union shops, and it’s in that area more than any other that the UAW is going to have to make some additional concessions (they already conceded a huge amount in their last contract for new employees).
But blaming a union for asking for good wages and workers for earning them is simply looking for blame in all the wrong places. Anti-union commentators will get what they want: lower wages for American workers; however, before conservatives celebrate lower pay, they might want to remember who fuels the American economy: consumers.
The great American businessman Henry Ford understood that paying workers well was critical for the success of the American economy and of his product in particular. If only there were more disciples of Ford today in American business.
There is real benefit to business of having a well-trained, well-paid workforce. Business gets better productivity in individual workplaces, and all businesses benefit when workers have disposable income.
Real culprits
People haven’t been buying Toyota and Honda over Chevy and Ford because of a few hundred dollars’ difference in labor costs, or even a thousand dollars’ worth. They’ve turned away from American vehicles because a Toyota will go 250,000 miles on pretty much oil and tire changes, while many American cars, until very recently, imploded before reaching six digits.
They turned away because while GM’s management thought it was nifty to create an entire brand of 10-mile-per-gallon quasi-military vehicles, Toyota and Honda were investing in alternative technologies.
How Japanese companies competing in the same markets as the Big 3 managed to bring hybrids to market 10 years before any American company is a story worthy of several books. Heck, Chrysler and GM still don’t have any hybrids to speak of.
These failures aren’t the fault of the line workers (American union workers also make Toyotas) or the people in unions who represent them. They’re the fault of short-sighted management, forever focused on next quarter’s stock showing and rarely thinking of the future or quality control.
I have real reservations about a loan for the Big 3, but there’s too much at stake for America’s workers and economy to let them collapse, especially right now. My reservations are that I fear management will pursue the same short-sighted, foolish, low-quality policies that brought us to this point in the first place.
If management can’t change its course, then the “loan” will simply constitute throwing good money after bad, and we can’t afford that. But so far, it looks like Congress and President-elect Obama are going to demand some real solutions.
A strong middle class is good for business and good for conservatives and liberals alike. Offshoring all of our decent jobs through suicidal trade agreements and busting unions is the surest way imaginable to permanently shrink our middle class.
Instead, conservatives and liberals alike should focus on making real changes to our economy, like pursuing more efficient structures of health care, rather than scapegoating people who merely work hard every day and have the gumption to ask for health care.
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.