It's a surreal world. I have considered that since about 1998, we live in the low-probability universe and nothing done here matters in the real world. So we might as well have fun.
Kicking auto workers while they are down is not my idea of fun, however.
Who exactly are these "Villagers" I keep reading about in the blogosphere? The reporters and TV newscasters? The Washington insiders? The people trying to break Number 6? Just wondering...
Several months ago, the liberal blogs -- I think it might have started with Digby -- began to refer to the entire political culture of Washington, and especially the talking heads on Sunday mornings, as "The Villagers", in reference to M. Might Shyamalan's movie The Village -- i.e., a bunch of old, superstitious people keeping themselves in power by telling everyone the same lies over and over, and with seriously flawed views of the real world.
There is a huge question being missed in all this, which is why the unions aren't folding and giving in, given that if the CEOs are telling the truth, the auto companies will be history in a few weeks and their jobs will be gone, OR the auto companies will declare bankruptcy in order to break their union contracts and cut wages.
As I see it, it sould be one of several things: the unions know something the press and the CEOs aren't telling us, and they think the whole thing is some sort of huge manipulative bluff, or they have some kind of financial interest in bringing down the big 3 auto companies, or perhaps they're just stubborn and would rather go down with the ship than be the ones who drown during the bailout.
Me, I don't have any clue - I'm just asking. I think there's a lot more to all of this than what has been revealed in the press, and I'm wondering if anyone here has an opinion.
Union-busting is at the heart of it. The Big 3 aren't going to declare bankruptcy, because the credit system (ostensibly fixed by the $700 billion bailout) is still broken, and they won't be able to restructure into anything viable. Bluntly, sadly, the real reason why this is going through such hard times in Congress really does seem to be that the Republican party can't stand the idea of unions and union workers getting anything decent out of it. We are actually in a situation where some Repubs (such as Jim DeMint of South Carolina) are complaining that workers for US-based companies are being paid more than workers whose companies are based in other countries (e.g., Honda, Toyota).
(An inaccurate statement, by the way -- the $73-an-hour lie (http://www.uaw22.org/print_article.cfm?homeID=107472) is a great sound bite with a lot of traction among Repubs, but it's still a lie.)
If anyone can come up with any other explanation that fits all the facts, I'd love to hear it, but that's what pretty much the entire left blogosphere, and a growing number of mainstream news organizations, is concluding.
Yes, that's what's motivating the republican senators, but that wasn't my question. My question is, why is the union saying no? Will the big 3 REALLY go under if they don't get this money?
Because they know the Repubs are trying to destroy them. All they can do is hold on to what they've got now. Being told they either have to lose their jobs or lose what little union protection they've got left, they're trying to the third route and force those new concessions off the table by sheer attrition.
Will the Big 3 go under? Dunno. Possible, very possible. But if they don't go under, but the unions are busted -- and therefore their employees can be forced to take even lower wages just to keep their jobs, or replaced by employees willing to take lower wages (see Circuit City and how well that worked) -- how is that better? So the unions don't give in. At least, I hope they don't.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 05:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 05:42 pm (UTC)Kicking auto workers while they are down is not my idea of fun, however.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 05:52 pm (UTC)Now...
How many British car makers actually are British?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 06:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-13 03:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-13 02:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-13 07:02 am (UTC)As I see it, it sould be one of several things: the unions know something the press and the CEOs aren't telling us, and they think the whole thing is some sort of huge manipulative bluff, or they have some kind of financial interest in bringing down the big 3 auto companies, or perhaps they're just stubborn and would rather go down with the ship than be the ones who drown during the bailout.
Me, I don't have any clue - I'm just asking. I think there's a lot more to all of this than what has been revealed in the press, and I'm wondering if anyone here has an opinion.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-13 02:06 pm (UTC)(An inaccurate statement, by the way -- the $73-an-hour lie (http://www.uaw22.org/print_article.cfm?homeID=107472) is a great sound bite with a lot of traction among Repubs, but it's still a lie.)
If anyone can come up with any other explanation that fits all the facts, I'd love to hear it, but that's what pretty much the entire left blogosphere, and a growing number of mainstream news organizations, is concluding.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-13 03:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-13 04:56 pm (UTC)Will the Big 3 go under? Dunno. Possible, very possible. But if they don't go under, but the unions are busted -- and therefore their employees can be forced to take even lower wages just to keep their jobs, or replaced by employees willing to take lower wages (see Circuit City and how well that worked) -- how is that better? So the unions don't give in. At least, I hope they don't.