Ever wonder what a labor contract looks like?
Courtesy of LaborPains.org, the displayed 22-lb., 2215-page monster is courtesy of the UAW and Ford Motor Company.
Do we really have to wonder why our auto industry is failing in the U.S. and they are opening plants in Brazil?
My more conservative (if you can believe it) significant other offered up these thoughts regarding the events in the Senate:
I’m happy that some of our Senators are actually doing their job by rejecting this proposal. What really did it for me is that many senators demanded that the UAW lower its wage standards. They, of course, refused. I shed no tears for an organization that is overpaid and thinks too much of themselves even when asking for a handout.
She’s spot on. You would think labor would want to save the company to save jobs. Looks like they’re content throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Category: Government
Loading ...
Jim – what is interesting is that the same GOP Senators had no desire to meddle with the internal workings of the financial industry – whose median wages are considerably higher than the blue-collar folks of the UAW.
I think this is less about principle and more about simple anti-union bias on the part of quite a few GOP members of the senate. Seriously, where was the outrage over AIG taking $500,000 trips on taxpayer dollars – or the fact that the financial industry STILL hasn’t opened their books? Or sold their corporate jets, Or stopped paying dividends?
I don’t disagree that the UAW needs to offer concessions – real concessions so that we can build plants like Ford’s new Brazilian beauty, but it is more than ironic that a party that gets angry about government interference in business (and accordingly stayed away from meddling with the financial industry) now wants to determine how much an individual employee gets paid.
Baloney, Mark….you may have some isolated examples that you can choose from regarding Republican who may have sold-out principle to government giveaway, but the reality is that most conservatives did not want to see the $700B fiasco in the fall go through, nor any winter giveaway to the auto industry.
I think it can be best summed up with a few simple words: “Free markets – Free people.”
Free market what? All our systems of credit are hyper concentrated in the fed and its web of preferred commercial banks. The free market is a joke. On a small scale sure, but once you need large amounts of capital you are no longer free. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. No one supports the government more than those who know its evils, yet do not revolt.
That first one was Goethe, the second Thoreau (paraphrased)…
[...] Jeremy Hinton of Bearing Drift waffles. See here. On the other hand, J.R. Hoeft presents the BIG LABOR contract. See here. [...]
Jim – Let’s look at the example set by Sens. Shelby and Corker, both of whom supported taxpayer support to lure foreign automakers to their respective states. Why is it that these supposed advocates of the free market (in this case) act with principle when the job losses are located elsewhere (in the north), but are willing to comprimise their positions when it means bringing good jobs home to Alabama and Tennessee?
I have no doubt that you believe in free makets/ free people, I just don’t think that the leaders of your party are so principled. Each of these individuals supported tax-breaks and tax-payer funded support to foreign automakers who built plants in their districts (which raises another question – are they truly advocating for a free market, or are they more interested in destroying the competition?)
As a final note, I would add a question: what does it mean to have free markets? Does that mean no government oversight? Simply a wilderness where the weak are destroyed?
While this is getting away from the purpose of your response, it was central to it. I want to leave you with this idea: free markets are only free so long as they are controlled, policed (following rules created by the government) and protected. TR broke the monopolies because they had gotten too strong and were destroying smaller companies, Reagan presided over some of the regulation of the banking industry that were removed under the Bush administration; regulations aren’t bad, they just provide the guidelines by which the free market can operate – to have otherwise is to create the kind of greed-driven, screw the little guy excess we’ve seen over the past few years.
If Republicans did not want the bailout of Wall Street they could have filibustered.
But when the bailouts turn from Wall Street to the assembly line they suddenly develop a backbone and remember how to filibuster? I’m not surprised.
It is interesting how quickly they were able to provide $150,000,000,000 to the white collar workers at AIG – without so much as a congressional hearing, or a demand that they stop bonuses – many of which are more than most taxpayers make in a year.
But, when it comes to a loan for a measly $14,000,000,000 to support two automakers and the blue collar workers they employ – now it’s time for limited government.
[...] perhaps if it ever came to a filibuster, the opposition could kill some time by reading through this: [...]
Better late than never.
Really? You don’t think that there are other more base local political issues at play? I didn’t realize you were such the idealist.
Let me get this straight. Unions spend tons of money to defeat Republicans, and when they want a Government bailout, they’re SURPRISED that the Republicans don’t just hand over the loot?
Brian,
Didn’t the Democrats agree to hand over the loot to Wall Street?
The idea that is supposed to be running through Republicans’ heads is what is best for America, not who coughs up the dough for their election campaigns.
David, you really don’t get it, do you?
Reality? Life?
The Unions are the ones who refuse to change one line of their precious contracts but want the bailout anyway from the people they’ve tried to defeat.
I’m not convinced that agreeing to that is “best for America.”
Brian, you really don’t get it, do you?
Reality? Life?
Us middle class voters have more votes then you white collar types.
We called out the calvary for Wall Street. Is it wrong to sound the trumpet only because those rescued might have some sweat on their collar?
Seriously BK you have talked about the GOP reshaping its message – well from where I stand the GOP’s message is loud and clear: help those in the top 1% of earners, and forget those who actually get their hands dirty. Really, just once like to see them do what’s best for America and not what’s best for the party – with the GOP for the last 10 years it’s been party first, nation second.
Honestly, I should be more thankful, on a daily basis the GOP is helping to justify my choice of political party.
Did those auto leaders get their hands dirty flying on their private jets to Congress?
the only real regulation from the govt needed to have a Free Market is enforcing contracts (includes saying the truth) and protecting property (i.e. environment, personal). sadly, the convention definition of the Free Market has been bastardized to become giving incentives to businesses (i.e. corporate welfare).
while Hoeft is correct in saying many Republicans were against the banking bailout, they lost their backbone because McCain came out in strong support for it and just weeks before the election the GOP preferred to show unity than principle. guess what? they paid for it.
BK – what’s nice is that anyone with a brain can see your/ the GOP’s spin on this one. I can’t wait for the 2010 election.
While I hope that the GOP isn’t pounded too badly, as we do need some kind of an opposition, I think we can already see where this is going to go.
Amit – before your overly critique our bastardization of the free market you should ask yourself:
1. do you appreciate knowing that the money you have deposited in your bank is safe?
2. do you enjoy investing in stocks of companies that have to provide information to shareholders – rather than hiding bad news from the people that own their company?
3. do you own your home? Prior to the initiation of FHA loans home ownership in this nation was less than 20%
4. do you desire a stable market?
There are litterally dozens of ways that our government, and others, have used the market to create wealth while also trying to stabilize catastrophic events – if anything the deregulation of the banking industry in the late 90s, early 00s – to a more “free market” approach is the most recent counter-argument for your stated desire to have a pure free market. After all, in a free market only those with wealth and power have the knowledge to trade and gain wealth, the rest of us are just the peons upon which that wealth is built.
1. do you appreciate knowing that the money you have deposited in your bank is safe?
Yes, and that is why I said the govt does have a role in enforcing contracts
2. do you enjoy investing in stocks of companies that have to provide information to shareholders – rather than hiding bad news from the people that own their company?
I only directly invest in companies I understand well and have proven they will be in business long term. Day traders that are making a trade a minute without understanding the business they are putting their money into are taking a high risk. That being said, companies that want you to invest in them have to provide information to the investors truthfully. There is a difference between not mentioning bad news and lying about it. The investors we hire need to smart enough to ask the right questions and perform the research before they put the money in. That’s what we pay them for.
3. do you own your home? Prior to the initiation of FHA loans home ownership in this nation was less than 20%
Yes, I own two homes. While home ownership has many advantages, artificially increasing the percentage is exactly how we arrived into our banking crisis.
Blaming deregulation of the banks and the Free Market for the current economic crisis is flat out wrong. The govt intervened where it should not have and through the Community Reinvestment Act incentivized banks to give out loans to people with bad credit with little to no documentation because there was no risk involved. The govt socialized the risk and privatized the profits. That is not Free Market! What did you think was going to happen? Alternatively, Capital One made money on high-risk individuals during the same time because they carefully vetted who and how much credit they gave.
4. do you desire a stable market?
Of course. Do you think the market performance should be based on companies performance or the Federal Reserve bank?
Amit,
Your deposits in banks (up to a limit) are safe because of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and not because of enforcement of contracts. One way out of a contract is to file for bankruptcy, and that is what banks were doing back during the Great Depression depriving even small depositors of their money.
As for the “investors we hire” being smart enough: it is difficult for even the smartest people to figure out what he good investments are when information is withheld from them. Look at the Madoff Wall Street fraud as a recent example.
Blaming the Community Reinvestment Act (which only prohibited redlining) for the mortgage meltdown is BS. The act did not force anyone to give loans to bad credit risks. It only prohibited not giving loans to people with good credit who just happened to live in the wrong neighborhood.
Amit clearly does not understand the terms of the “free market” he claims to endorse.
Mark,brilliant and useful post.
LittleDavid, I didn’t say CRA forced the banks but rather incentivized/encouraged them to make risky loans. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both govt sponsored institutions, pushed for low income loans to increase the percentage of home ownership in the country and meet CRA goals. Of course the Iraq war, govt waste and the Federal Reserve didn’t help our current condition either, so you’re right its not all CRA’s fault.