Support the United Auto Workers

Nathan Newman over at TPM has an outstanding piece about why progressives should rally to the cause of the United Auto Workers union. I have written about this before, but it bears repeating: the UAW has been one of the most remarkable civil institutions in America throughout its history.  It has been on the cutting edge of issues of social justice, even where those issues were not directly related to the interests of its membership.  The UAW and its visionary president, Walther Reuther, pushed for national health care back in the 1950s (the auto companies were too stupid to join in), and stood shoulder to shoulder with the civil rights movement throughout the 1960s, virtually bankrolling the freedom riders and underwriting much of the March on Washington.  Hell, even the Port Huron Statement was penned by Tom Hayden at a UAW retreat facility in Michigan.  (Not to mention that my very first blog post was inspired by the UAW.)

This Union and its members have more than earned our support in this difficult time.  I'd encourage some of our progressive blogger brethren of more tender years to do a little homework before they consign these people to the ash heap of bankruptcy.  (In comments, Newman also does a nice job of demolishing the claims that UAW members make extravagant wages.)     

Comments

[Stephen]

People also need to understand that the auto companies' executives won't be "punished" by letting the Big Three collapse. They're all wealthy enough to handle a temporary job loss - and temporary is all it would be, since we're hopefully all aware of how easy it is for failed VPs and CEOs to find work in other companies and/or industries.

Unlike the Wall Street bailout, which is predictably coming under fire for becoming a way for Paulson to line his friends' pockets, bailing out the Big Three would result in millions of Americans being able to keep their jobs, their homes and food on the table. And it could be done more cheaply than the trillions we're spending to provide Wall Street assholes with bonuses and spa trips.

The Big Three haven't been run any worse than Lehmann Bros or Goldman Sachs - for that matter, they aren't the architects of the financial crisis. They don't suffer from any more problems than most other large American companies run by people who focus solely on massaging day-to-day stock prices. The negative feelings that even progressives feel toward those companies are more a result of decades of anti-union propaganda than any objective evidence that the Big Three are especially bad corporations.

If we really want to avoid complete economic destruction, bail them out. Bail them out, bail them out, bail them out. The money will go directly toward mortgages, rent, groceries, kids' shoes and school lunches.

[Joe Klein's conscience]

I want to throw up watching CNBC. All those asshats want to do is bust the UAW. Gasparino is by far the worst. I would be ashamed if I knew that any Democrats weren't supporting the UAW on this.

[shaun]

Sweet but stupid.

I am a union man, but it's too bad the UAW wasn't as good at forcing the big bosses to make competitive products as it was at admirably advancing a liberal social agenda. In fact, it never tried.

The UAW is part of the problem. It has never been part of the solution.

[Stephen]

I am a union man, but it's too bad the UAW wasn't as good at forcing the big bosses to make competitive products as it was at admirably advancing a liberal social agenda

It seems to me that the job of a union is to represent its members and their interests. And the job of those workers is to make products. My understanding is that those who design cars and trucks aren't union. Nor do any union members sit on the boards of directors, nor did they ever work with Congress to create tax loopholes that let people deduct the entire cost of Hummers or other gas-guzzlers from their income taxes.

One could say that it's in the union's interest for their companies to make competitive products, but there really isn't any mechanism for unions to take control of the product development process - and they would be heavily criticized if they tried.

In other words, I'm tired of seeing unions getting blamed for management's problems, which is exactly what your comment is doing. You might be a union man, but you're using management lies to smear your supposed compatriots.

[Sir Charles]

Shaun,

I don't think there's anything stupid about solidarity with those who have fought the good fight with you -- especially in their hour of need.

[Corvus]

Damn, Sir Charles, thanks for posting this. I thought a bailout was necessary anyways, because the desire to see them fail seemed to stem from either evil Libertarians (or as I like to call them, Libertarians) and the combination of reflexive big-business hatred and culture-based callowness of the progressive elite towards the working class. This really points out that those people should be ashamed of themselves.

[yoyo]

Yeah, the auto workers should have better managed the companies. And I'm sure all those high paid executives would have loved to hear how they should do their jobs.

[SHAUN]

Thank you for so completely misreading my post. You have a real future in blogging.

I did not say nor imply that the UAW should get blamed for the feckless management of Rick Wagoner. All I said was that the UAW never, to my knowledge, sought to call out Wagoner on the shitty job he was doing since that eventually would boomerang on the rank and file.

If you know otherwise, please provide a link.

[Stephen]

Shaun,

Did we hurt your feelings? You said, and I quote: "it's too bad the UAW wasn't as good at forcing the big bosses to make competitive products as it was at admirably advancing a liberal social agenda."

What I and some other commenters would like to know is why you think unions are responsible for managing companies. Why you think the UAW is responsible for coming up with new product lines, and why poor engineering is their fault.

In your view, not only can management do no wrong, they're apparently irrelevant. And as far as "advancing a liberal social agenda," I'm glad the UAW has long been interested in opening the workplace to all people and protecting all workers' rights, no matter their skin color, gender or other characteristics.

All I said was that the UAW never, to my knowledge, sought to call out Wagoner on the shitty job he was doing since that eventually would boomerang on the rank and file.

Well, as I pointed out, that wasn't "all you said." But what's worse is how you completely fail to understand what a union is supposed to do. If the UAW had spent Wagoner's tenure complaining about him, they would have been criticized from all directions and would have soured negotiations with management. Again, their job is to represent their members, many of whom work for GM, none of whom have any responsibility in running GM.

I also suspect that if the UAW had been criticizing Wagoner, you'd be first in line complaining about it.

[Sir Charles]

Stephen answers so I don't have to.

I think, Sean, we read your comments exactly fairly. And I was exceedingly restrained in response to the notion that my sentiments were "sweet but stupid."