Nostalgia
Adam Kotsko:
One nice thing about the auto makers asking for a bailout is that we’re getting a return to all the harrowing tales of how the evil labor unions raped and pillaged US industry. If they hadn’t gotten too big for their britches, Flint might still be a vibrant city rather than a ghost town with a criminal and former car dealer as mayor. Oh, those greedy workers! When will enough be enough?! When will they stop cutting into the bosses’ profit margins and forcing them to relocate?
Growing up in Flint, I of course heard stories like this constantly. The basic message: Unions did good things in their time, but they overreached, meaning that we were all screwed in the long term. The assumption seems to be that the owners’ short-sighted pursuit of profit was just a brute fact, but workers should’ve known better than to try to get the best contract they could get — i.e., workers should’ve been looking out for the owners’ best interests rather than their own. Psychologists have a name for this particular style of thought: Stockholm Syndrome.
After living in Michigan for about three or four years now and with all of the sturm und drang surrounding the auto industry over the past several decades (but especially now), I’ve heard these same ridiculous anti-union claims on more than one occasion. The problem that I have with the bailout is that it seems to be an extension of this absurd logic that bosses just naturally act out of greedy self-interest, which is a good thing, but workers must constantly sacrifice for the industry and never demand higher wages, because that would be unproductive and unpatriotic.
The bailout seems to reward the idiotic decisions made by the bosses, who’ve mismanaged these once successful companies into the ground in under four decades, by turning the auto industry into state capitalist zombie corporations. The auto industries should be allowed to fail and declare bankruptcy. Any of the potential bailout money that would be used to save the companies (in the billions) ought to instead go towards providing welfare for the workers who would be potentially laid off as a result. This seems to be far more equitable, which is also why it probably won’t happen because it would be like declaring “CLASS WARFARE”!
Jason
The claim isn’t that the unions shouldn’t be looking out for their best interest. Rather, it’s that the UAW made unreasonable demands and frankly asked for more than they were worth. Unions can be good, but they can also go too far. Look at the vultures that make up the NEA.
Bryan Klausmeyer
Uhm, the claim being made in the quoted post is that the whole notion that the unions “asked for too much” or for “more than they were worth” is basically ridiculous, as if the profits reaped by the CEOs and upper-level management is somehow not at issue at all.
Jason
“The assumption seems to be that the owners’ short-sighted pursuit of profit was just a brute fact, but workers should’ve known better than to try to get the best contract they could get — i.e., workers should’ve been looking out for the owners’ best interests rather than their own.”
The attack is also on the idea that the unions should not be looking out for their best interest. I’m merely saying that the “best interest” of the unions doesn’t change the fact that they demanded more than they were worth. As to whether or not the CEOs were, that’s hardly something either you or I are probably qualified to speak on. Losses by the company do not, within themselves, mean poor management by the higher ups. Especially if they were prisoners of the UAW (if I recall, there was a time when GM was paying certain workers to quit because it was simply too difficult to fire them and too costly to keep them on, so I’m not just using hyperbole), it is entirely possible that management was doing a fine job, but the unions sapped them dry. This argument has certainly been made, and it’s somewhat persuasive with the data I’ve seen. That said, I’m skeptical of any company that seeks this sort of relief from the government. However, I don’t see why bad management somehow mitigates the fact that the UAW overreached. Maybe all parties are at fault. That certainly seems more likely to me.
And like I said, I’m not decrying unions. Some unions are very good, and bridge the gap between what they produce and what they earn. Hell, many unions actually pride themselves on quality. The UAW, however, makes ridiculous demands and hardly puts up the work to justify it.
Bryan Klausmeyer
bryklaus@umich.edu
3 Comments