NYT: As Detroit is Remade, the U.A.W. Stands to Gain

[flpoljunkie]

(Seems like a good thing to have workers deeply vested and invested in the company's outcome.)

April 30, 2009

As Detroit Is Remade, the U.A.W. Stands to Gain

By MICHELINE MAYNARD and NICK BUNKLEY

DETROIT — In the devastating slump that has forced two of Detroit’s automakers to the brink of bankruptcy, the United Automobile Workers union stands to become one of the industry’s few winners.

According to restructuring plans proposed this week, the union will have more than half the stock in Chrysler and a third of General Motors, meaning it will have tremendous influence, with the government, in determining the future of the companies.

The United Automobile Workers union said Wednesday that its members ratified a cost-cutting deal with Chrysler by a 4-to-1 margin.

“Our members have responded by accepting an agreement that is painful for our active and retired workers, but which helps preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs and gives Chrysler a chance to survive,” Ron Gettelfinger, the union’s president, said in a statement.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/business/30uaw.html

[Romulox]

1. New hires = $14/hour + 401k. How has the UAW won ANYTHING? nt

[Dinger]

2. I Agree (nt)

[msallied]

3. That's higher than a lot of starting wages.

When I started work for a Fortune 500 company, my starting wage was $12.50/hr plus benefits. I left there before I got my first raise (trouble pregnancy), but my husband has worked for the same company for much longer and started at the same and now makes well over $20/hr. I know very few who start out of the gate making more, even with graduate degrees.

[Romulox]

4. That's what they told my sharecropper ancestors. nt

[msallied]

5. How much do you think they should be making starting out?

You likening them to slaves is a bit of a fucking stretch, especially when a lot of people are stuck in minimum wage jobs with zero benefits.

[Romulox]

10. Not getting into this with a Corpocrat. (PS sharecroppers weren't slaves.) nt

[msallied]

31. A "Corporcat?" Give me a break.

You do yourself no favors with hyperbole.

[Romulox]

41. Given your "entitlement" post downthread, I am right on the money. nt

[Two Americas]

15. race to the bottom

Your comments reflect a race to the bottom mentality. Higher wages anywhere help all of us. Talk about who does or doesn't deserve a decent living wage is a pro-management reactionary position. All workers deserve a decent wage, and the fact that some are not getting that does not logically mean that none should.

[dionysus]

23. uh, einstein, they can't pay them more if the company isn't making any money... apparently you can't

grasp this simple concept...

[Two Americas]

24. right

That is the core tenet of the conservative political movement. It is far to the right of Abraham Lincoln's view of this, for example, let alone that of traditional Democrats and the Labor movement.

You are free to take an anti-Labor position - there will always be people in the country who do - but let's not pretend that it is something else or ridicule any who disagree with that.

Labor is the source of wealth, not capital. Without the workers, no management or owners would prosper. Without management and owners, people would and always have prospered by the sweat of their brow and the work of their own hands. That is the bedrock foundation of the Democratic party, the organized Labor movement, and any and all politics other than those that are the most conservative.



....

[dionysus]

26. utterly absurd.you expect them to pay them with monopoly money? unless they're moving cars, where is

the dough going to come from?

if GM was rolling in dough and sticking it to the workers, that's one thing. but the company is broke. they can only pay people what the revenue supports. or borrow the money and go further in debt.


to spin that as anti-labor is ridiculous, and you know it.

[Two Americas]

34. the "dough"

The money comes from Labor, not capital, from the workers, not management, from the people, not the bosses, from the factory, not Wall Street. That is where they get the money. That is the point of view from any and all political positions other than the most conservative.


...

[dionysus]

72. maybe we're talking at cross purposes. i'm not talking about how owners\investors rip off labor.

what I'm talking about is, these companies are in such rough shape, because people aren't buying the product right now. they're not taking a cut so the owners can make more, at this point. everyone is fucked because the companies are *broke*.

i would think that you would be happy the workers are gettign an ownership stake here.

the discussion is practically moot until people can afford to buy the product again. and that's were the greedy-ass banks come in, sitting on money they should be lending.

[Two Americas]

81. ownership stake

It is the concept of "ownership stake" that I am arguing against. It is a lie and a trick. It is what the Republicans have been selling since the Reagan era. It has destroyed the country. The workers will be dependent upon the health of the company, with little control over that, much less then they had when the Union was strong. The fat cats will benefit and take little risk. That is the problem with this "ownership stake" silliness. It takes power out of the hands of the people and places it into the hands of the few, while fooling people onto thinking that the opposite is happening.

Supposedly everyone with a 401K has an "ownership stake" in Wall Street.


...

[dionysus]

82. i contend ownership stake would give them more power to stop fat cats from pillaging the money,IMO

you're entitled to your opinion as well.:hi:

[Two Americas]

139. I know you do

You have not supported that assertion, however, but are asking us to take it on faith.


...

[Odin2005]

118. You obviously missed the fucking point and went on an ideological tirade istead.

It doesn't matter who owns the company. Even if Chrysler was a co-op pay would still have to be cut because there is less income coming in from reduced sales, meaning less profit to be distributed to the members of the co-op. One's political views doesn't change the fact that 1+1=2.

[Hannah Bell]

100. not moving cars? they sold more than any other company in the world in 2007,

2008, and most other years as well.

but folks like you think they don't make money.

don't bother linking some news blurb publicizing their "losses". read their annual report, & learn.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/by-the-numbers-2007/

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/05/by-the-numbers-2008-phew-glad-thats-over-edition/

[dionysus]

137. they're doing so well they're on the brink of going out of business.

and the definately have inventory they can't move.

[Hannah Bell]

159. every auto corp has inventory they can't move currently - economic activity

dropped 6% recently, unemployment is pushing 10% with no end in sight.

GM sells more cars than anyone in the world, & they've been building plants in china, russia, brazil & elsewhere hand over fist.

If you look at their annual reports, you'll find the reason they *appear* to be losing money is because they're taking billions in stored-up tax offsets.

They *want* bankruptcy so they can offload their dealership, pension & healthcare obligations.

[Djinn]

201. any idea just how many Argentian business that "went broke"

and couldn't possibly stay afloat were actually run successfully following worker occupation and takeover? nearly a decade after their economic crises and despite all the best efforts of the plutocracy, more than 15,000 people are working in these co-ops.

The ruling class have a VERY different view of profit to the rest of us, you should stop taking their pronouncements as truth, they do not share your interests

[Barack_America]

27. Is that how you balance your checkbook?

Oh how the conservatives would love it if we ceded balanced budgets to them.

[Two Americas]

36. of course, yes

I am a Democrat, and I am pro-Labor. Increasing wages is the only way to balance any checkbook. Anything else merely causes wealth to flow into the hands of the few. That is the problem, and can never be part of the solution. Conservatives don't agree with that - disagreeing with that is what it means to be a conservative - but I am unshakable in that conviction and it is not negotiable.


...

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

49. The same way AIG is paying bonuses, and Citi is paying to remodel their HQ.

:hi:

[Two Americas]

58. more ridicule

It is quite simple. You are not responding to what I said.

The political right wing says that the economy is the relative fortunes of the investors, speculators and manipulators - the wealthy. They say that if the wealthy are doing well, it will raise all boats and benefits will trickle down to the rest of us.

The political Left says that the economy is the relative well-being of the workers and the people, and that all wealth starts from the bottom and trickles up.

You are free to take either position, of course. But introducing confusion about that and ridiculing those who take the traditional Democratic party and organized Labor position does everyone here a tremendous disservice.



....

[dionysus]

61. no, you're being deliberately obtuse. you're talking about "investors, speculators and manipulators"

in a strawman attempt to claim i support them. I am telling you that a company can only pay wages out of revenue. they can't pay out money they don't have, or they go broke. it's that simple.

Are you suggesting these companies continue to borrow money to make payroll? cause that's what it sounds like.

[Two Americas]

68. ok

I will let Lincoln speak for me. He expresses my point better than I can. This is but one of many examples of what he is saying here, so there is no argument about where he stood on this or that anything has been taken out of context to falsely be used to support an idea, and it is also the foundation for any political thinking other than that of extreme conservatism.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Abraham Lincoln
State of the Union Address
December 3, 1861
http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/73.html

[olegramps]

114. Your argument has nothing to do with the realities of the situation.

Management made some terrible decisions that have had long lasting affects. It is my humble opinion that what is wrong with many American companies has to do with the professional managers that have no indepth knowledge of the business. The most effective managers in our company were those who came up through the ranks. I saw a big change when our company abandone this principle and concentrated on recruitment of business management graduates. They came with their PERT charts, just in time theories and endless business cases without any regard or appreciation for the actual manufacturing processes. They became a seperate group of the elect with no communication with the people doing the work. Before, a manager who rose up through the ranks would have absolutely no difficulty coming out on the floor and talk over a problem or be willing to listen and take correct action.

[Two Americas]

154. no they didn't

Management did not make any terrible decisions. They made great decisions - for themselves. I don't understand how we could see this any other way.

The country has been successfully looted by the few, and those who did the looting were highly competent at it.

They made terrible decisions for the rest of us, yes. But they didn't care about us. Why would they?


...

[Two Americas]

70. and FDR

I don't expect you to necessarily agree with Lincoln or FDR on this, I only ask that there be an end to the ridicule and marginalization of those who do as though they were expressing absurd ideas that we should not consider, or as though they should not be welcome here or in the Democratic party.

A Rendezvous With Destiny

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
June 27, 1936
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Philadelphia is a good city in which to write American history. This is fitting ground on which to reaffirm the faith of our fathers; to pledge ourselves to restore to the people a wider freedom; to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776 - an American way of life.

That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy - from the eighteenth-century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.

And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution - all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small-businessmen and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor - these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

http://www.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his2341/fdr36acceptancespeech.htm

[dionysus]

74. i think you have this misconception that i am against labor...

:shrug:

[Two Americas]

77. I don't know

I don't know, nor do I care, what you "are."

I am talking about what you wrote.

It is what we do and what we say that has political impact, not what we "are."


...

[Two Americas]

73. and Dr. King

"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

"The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands..."

The problem indicates that our emphasis must be twofold: We must create full employment, or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available... Work of this sort could be enormously increased, and we are likely to find that the problem of housing, education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished. The poor, transformed into purchasers, will do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay. Negroes, who have a double disability, will have a greater effect on discrimination when they have the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.

Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands, when he has the assurance that his income is stable and certain, and when he knows that he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts between husband, wife, and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on a scale of dollars is eliminated.

"An edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring..."

I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about "Where do we go from here?" that we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that's two-thirds water?" These are words that must be said.

http://moneyandvalues.blogspot.com/2008/01/martin-luther-king-on-economic-justice.html

[Two Americas]

76. many voices

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level - I mean the wages of decent living."

"True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."

Donald Robert Perry Marquis

"When someone tells you that they got rich through hard work, ask them whose."

Frank Lloyd Wright

"If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men and women have a right to capitalize their ideas and the resources of their country, then that implies the right of men and women to capitalize their labor."

Rose Schneiderman

"We have tried you good people of the public - and we have found you wanting...I can't talk fellowship to you who are gathered here. Too much blood has been spilled. I know from my experience it is up to the working people to save themselves."

"What the woman who labors wants is the right to live, not simply exist -- the right to life as the rich woman has the right to life, and the sun and music and art. You have nothing that the humblest worker has not a right to have also. The worker must have bread, but she must have roses, too."

Molly Ivins

"Although it is true that only about <13 percent> of American workers are in unions, that <13 percent> sets the standards across the board in salaries, benefits and working conditions. If you are making a decent salary in a non-union company, you owe that to the unions. One thing that corporations do not do is give out money out of the goodness of their hearts."

Mother Jones

"My friends it is solidarity we want. We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing."

"Mourn for the dead. Fight for the living."

"The next generation will not charge us for what we've done; they will charge and condemn us for what we have left undone."

"I live in the United States, but I do not know exactly where. My address is wherever there is a fight against oppression. My address is like my shoes; it travels with me. I abide where there is a fight against wrong."

"Some day the workers will take possession of your city hall, and when we do, no child will be sacrificed on the altar of profit."

Edward Kennedy

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

"The way you spell Kennedy is L-A-B-O-R and don't you ever forget it."

"Unfortunately, the current union election system is broken. The nation's labor laws are too weak and too weakly enforced, and union elections are often neither free nor fair. Everyday, employers violate workers' right to organize and write off the minor penalties as the cost of doing business. It's time to fix this broken system. That's why I'll be introducing the Employee Free Choice Act in the Senate."

"The American people spoke up - loudly and clearly - in the last election, saying they want a Congress that stands up for working families. The Employee Free Choice Act is exactly the kind of bold action they were calling for. It is a key part of the Democratic plan to help the struggling middle class and restore the economic security that has been lost during the Bush years."

"Make no mistake about it! There is an organized movement against organized labor and it's called the Bush Administration."

"The Employee Free Choice Act is about more than changing our labor laws - it's about giving workers basic dignity and respect in the workplace. It's the first of many steps we need to take to restore the voice of the American worker, which has been silenced far too long."

Martin Luther King Jr.

"All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence."

"As I have said many times, and believe with all my heart, the coalition that can have the greatest impact in the struggle for human dignity here in America is that of the Negro and the forces of labor, because their fortunes are so closely intertwined."

"It is in this area (politics) of American life that labor and the Negro have identical interests. Labor has grave problems today of employment, shorter hours, old age security, housing and retraining against the impact of automation. The Congress and the Administration are almost as indifferent to labor's program as they are toward that of the Negro. Toward both they offer vastly less than adequate remedies for the problems which are a torment to us day after day."

"You are demanding that this city will respect the dignity of labor. So often we overlook the work and the significance of those who are not in professional jobs, of those who are not in the so-called big jobs. But let me say to you tonight that whenever you are engaged in work that serves humanity and is for the building of humanity, it has dignity and it has worth."

"The Labor Movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress."

John L. Lewis

"The labor movement is organized upon a principle that the strong shall help the weak. The strength of a strong (wo)man is a prideful thing, but the unfortunate thing in life is that strong (wo)men do not remain strong. And it is just as true of unions and labor organizations as is true of (wo)men and individuals. And whereas today the craft unions of this country may be able to stand upon their own feet and like mighty oaks stand before the gale, defy the lightning, yet the day may come when those organizations will not be able to withstand the lightning and the gale. Now, prepare yourselves by making a contribution to your less fortunate brethren...Organize the unorganized!"

"Increased interest and participation by labor in the affairs of government should make for economic and political stability in the future. Labor has a constitutional and statutory right to participate."

"Let the workers organize. Let the toilers assemble. Let their crystallized voices proclaim their injustices and demand their privileges. Let all thoughtful citizens sustain them, for the future of Labor is the future of America."

Abraham Lincoln

"If any man tells you he loves America, yet hates labor, he is a liar. If any man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool."

"All that harms labor is treason to America."

"The strongest bond of human sympathy outside the family relation should be one uniting working people people of all nations and tongues and kindreds."

"it is assumed that labor and education are incompatible; and any practical combination of them impossible. According to that theory, a blind horse upon a tread-mill, is a perfect illustration of what a laborer should be - all the better for being blind, that he could not tread out of place, or kick understandingly.... labor insists on universal education."

A. Phillip Randolph

"The essence of trade unionism is social uplift. The labor movement has been the haven for the dispossessed, the despised, the neglected, the downtrodden, the poor."

"A community is democratic only when the humblest and weakest person can enjoy the highest civil, economic, and social rights that the biggest and most powerful possess."

John Sweeney

"The union movement stands for the fundamental moral values that make America strong: quality education for our children, affordable health care for every person - not just some - an end to poverty, secure pensions and wages that enable families to sustain the middle-class life that has fueled this nation's prosperity and strength. Union members and other working family activists don't just vote our moral values - we live them. We fight for them, day in, day out. Our commitment to economic and social justice propels us and everything we do."

"We want our tax dollars to provide a hand up for the millions of working people who live on Main Street and not a handout to a privileged band of overpaid corporate executives."

Clarence Darrow

"With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men (and women) that ever existed. They have done more for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the race, for the developing of character in men (and women) than any other association."

Eugene Debs

"Solidarity is not a matter of sentiment but a fact, cold and impassive as the granite foundations of a skyscraper. If the basic elements, identity of interest, clarity of vision, honesty of intent, and oneness of purpose, or any of these is lacking, all sentimental pleas for solidarity, and all other efforts to achieve it will be barren of results."

"Ten thousand times the labor movement has stumbled and bruised itself. We have been enjoined by the courts, assaulted by thugs, charged by the militia, traduced by the press, frowned upon in public opinion, and deceived by politicians. But not withstanding all this and all these, labor is today the most vital and potential power this planet has ever known, and its historic mission is as certain of ultimate realization as is the setting of the sun."

"I seek to rise with workers, not rise from them."

Stewart Acuff

"You see, Dr. King understood that it is organizing that makes us most human. He knew that when we use our social nature to lift each other up, we express our full humanity. We don't realize our potential in life the way corporate America and their media tells us -- not by pushing others aside or crawling over anyone else's back or kissing somebody's a**, but by linking arms and lifting everyone, everyone's family, everyone's kids, everyone's standard of living. And so today, my brothers and sisters, we are confronted by his memory. We are called by his struggle. We are challenged by his sacrifice."

"They have waged class war on us. It is time for our class to fight back. It's time for us to reach out to one another to fight for the right to organize, to fight corporations that would fight us, to demand that trade agreements protect workers and workers' rights, children, our environment, and our quality of life, and to fight for human dignity."

Alice Adams

"When you say fiscal responsibility, it seems to me that you really mean rich people keeping their money."

[Odin2005]

120. More proof you didn't get the point.

Nobody is defending economic royalists, unless you think math and common sense are just more "bourgeois ideology" used to keep down the masses in which case you are beyond being reasoned with.

[Two Americas]

122. don't know what you mean

I am responding to the comments made on this thread.

Using this phrase - "math and common sense are just more 'bourgeois ideology' used to keep down the masses" - is red-baiting, however cleverly phrased, and should have no place in ant serious political discussion. By that I mean ridiculing any left wing points of view by hinting or insinuating that they are extreme and unreasonable points of view, associated with Marxism or Communism, and should therefore be ignored and dismissed out of hand. I think we are getting enough of that from the right wingera lately, don't you?

What is the point that you think I am missing?


...

[Odin2005]

130. Workers can't get paid money that doesn't exist. THAT'S the point.

And by accusing me, a socialist who supports a co-op-based market-socialist economy, of "red-baiting" simply because I have no use for dogmatic Marxist nonsense have given an example why I reject Marxism.

[Two Americas]

136. what?

No "dogmatic Marxist nonsense" has been posted, and whether or not you call yourself "a socialist who supports a co-op-based market-socialist economy" has nothing to do with whether or not you are red-baiting. The red-baiting itself is the accusation and the provocation, by the way, defending oneself from it is not making any "accusations."

Calling what I posted "dogmatic Marxist nonsense" is red-baiting, plain and simple. I posted no Marxist dogma, and in any case ideas should be assessed on their intrinsic value, not their imagined association with something. By way of contrast, I have pointed out that he arguments being promoted on this thread are conservative arguments, not to therefore discredit them but rather for the sake of clarity. What people have posted here is in fact the foundational and core ideas of political conservatism. What I have posted is in fact not Marxist dogma.



...

[Odin2005]

145. a left-winger criticizing the viewes of another left-winger isn't "red-baiting"

In my experience many on the Marxist left have a tendency of dismissing all criticism as right-wing propaganda, a form of fallacious reasoning that leads to a self-reinforcing dogmatism, and so your "What people have posted here is in fact the foundational and core ideas of political conservatism." accusations set off my BS detector, so I'm sorry for jumping to hasty conclusions. But that still doesn't make what you are talking about relevant to what is an accounting problem.

[Two Americas]

147. not at all

The fact that so many who call themselves Democrats take conservative points of view on issues, as people are doing here, is not the fault of those who point that out.

Is it, as you say, that some are always accusing others of making conservative arguments, or could it not be that people are in fact making conservative arguments? I have worked hard art supporting my assertions here. They have yet to be countered or refuted. I have been very specific as to exactly what I am saying is the conservative point of view that is being expressed here, and supported that assertion more than adequately.

Merely saying "oh well people like you are always doing that" - opposing what you are saying - does not refute what I wrote. It is an attempt at guilt by association, and an attack on the messenger rather than the message. Yes - that is red-baiting.

Is seeing capital as the source of wealth and prosperity rather than Labor the core and foundational belief that underlies conservative politics, or is it not?


...

[JoseGaspar]

166. In truth,

you do nothing but red-bait - consistently, persistently and dogmatically. Call yourself a turnip if you like but you aren't any kind of "Socialist".

[Hannah Bell]

161. GM had something like 148 billion in revenue last year, do you think that's enough not to stiff

their workers?

[Barack_America]

65. You run your household on deficit spending?

How does that work out for you?

Listen, I'm all for increased profit sharing amongst employees rather than executives. I am no foe to the UAW. I was, in fact, raised on UAW benefits. Without the UAW my mother would not have had a job, a fact that I make sure she remembers. However, spending one's way into debt in order to spend one's way out of debt is not the solution to create a stable, enduring automotive industry. Increased employee stake in company decisions and revenue is the way to go and it looks like that is exactly what the UAW is negotiating for in the Chrysler bankruptcy hearings, and rightly so.

[dkf]

111. Current employees make less to fund benefits for past employees.

Detroit hasn't made money off of selling its cars for years. They've been making their money off the financing, the same as Wall Street.

Boosting wages will increase the cost of the car, making them more expensive than their better built and better designed Japanese competitors.

Of course if the UAW wants to run the company into the ground, they mostly put themselves at risk now.

[Romulox]

37. Er, what about the $3 TRILLION to Wall Street, Mr. Fiscal Conservative????

:hi:

[dionysus]

52. uh, that's wall street, not the automotive companies

[Romulox]

55. Oh, I see. I guess the "free market" rules you espouse don't apply to Wall Street.

For some unexplained (and unexplainable, I'm sure,) reason.

[dionysus]

57. that's a FAIL if you suppose i am impressed with the AIG shit. you're flailing.

so where is the money going to come from for raises when there is no revenue? can you be clear? or will you just scream corporatist?

[Romulox]

60. Aside from the inconsistency, you aren't making much sense right now.

Nobody is talking about "raises", for one.

[Odin2005]

119. The New Marxist Man doesn't need accounting!!! *SARCASM*

At least thats the vibes I'm getting from 2A. :eyes:

[Two Americas]

173. "vibes?"

I have been quite clear about what I am saying, and courteous and respectful toward you.

Why are you smearing me?


...

[alwysdrunk]

107. Labor? REVENUE is the source of wealth!

You think it's anti-labor to pay what the company can afford to pay? I really hope this attitude isn't indicative of the labor movement as a whole.

[blindpig]

113. There is no revenue without labor.

And who decides what the company can afford to pay? The company? It's officers or stockholders? The bondholders? Might there not be a conflict here? The company is nothing, makes nothing, without labor. Only after all of these have 'sacrificed', down to the nub, should concessions from the workers even be considered. I don't see that happening.

[Two Americas]

125. yes and no

This "attitude" is indicative of the labor movement as a whole when the organized Labor movement has been successful. To the extent that this attitude has been abandoned, so has organized Labor declined, and as organized Labor has declined the right wing has gained in strength, the Democratic party has veered to the right, jobs have disappeared, the environment has been ravaged, and wages and standards of living have declined.

Do you really think that people have been being paid ages that are too high, and that this is the problem? That it is organized Labor that has made our economy suffer and our industrial base disappear? That is fine if you do, some always will, but I will have to point out that this is the conservative point of view on this - the most important tenet of conservative political thinking.

I would point out that before the last 30 years of Republican rule, we still had an industrial base, and the Republicans have succeeded in destroying the workers and driving wages down - supposedly because "companies can't afford to pay the workers" as you say here - and that it is this assault on the working class that has caused our economic problems. That is the logical and obvious conclusion. The Republicans have not been identifying and solving problems, they have been causing them.

The Republican approach to this is to say "things are really bad and we must do something" hen things are not bad, and to then set to work to make things really bad so they can then say "see? Things are really bad, so I am sorry but we can't afford to give the people what they need." I am surprised, after what we have seen just over the last few months, that any Democratic are still falling for this right wing lie, let alone defending and promoting it.

If the economic problems were caused by the workers wanting too much, and the companies not being able to afford them, then the economy should be booming right now since the Republicans and Wall Street have succeeded in having everything there ay and have crushed organized Labor. How come things are worse, if that is truly the solution?



...

[knixphan]

29. Seconded!

[msallied]

30. Actually no, it's a race to the top. You stick with a company, get raises, and make more money.

Starting out the gate at $45/hr accomplishes what exactly?

[dionysus]

33. they don't seem to understand that a company can only pay salary from

revenue - cost of building product.

say a company makes a million dollars a year, and it costs them 200k to make the product they sold.

that means they only have 800k left to pay wages. it's simple math and these guys don't get it.

[msallied]

35. It's called "entitlement" basically.

God forbid a company pays workers what it can afford. GM and Chrysler tried it the other way. It didn't work.

[Romulox]

39. LOL. Kicking to bring attention to this post! It's very "compassionate"! nt

[Two Americas]

59. that is the conservative position

Talking about "entitlement" is a common conservative theme.

Why would the workers NOT be entitled to the lion;s share of the wealth they produce through their Labor?

If you think that the auto companies are in trouble because they foolishly overpaid their workers, you are taking the conservative position on this.


...

[Odin2005]

121. Big Auto is in trouble because of shitty managment. this resulted in reduced sales and so less...

...money to go around, so of course that is going to effect wages negatively. There is no fucking conspiracy here.

[Two Americas]

198. "conspiracy"

Dirty word there, that can always be used in lieu of an actual argument to discredit certain points of view.

The reason, the only reason, that there is ever "less money to go around" is because some have been hoarding it. People who are motivated to extract and hoard capital are not trying to make good cars. They succeeded - they raked in money.

The idea that if they had made better cars, sales would have been better, and then there would be more money to go around denies economic reality. You are setting up a false dichotomy here, and one that supports the management position.

Paying workers well and making decent products and selling them go together. Screwing workers, making a bad product and squandering the money on themselves go together. "We have to screw the workers now because - ooops! - we made a bad product and misspent the money" is a lie.


...

[5thGenDemocrat]

106. My best friend, a UAW worker since 1977, currently makes $16/hr

And every single one of his co-pays and deductibles went up under the last contract. UAW made its concessions (BIG concessions) in the last contract and management still drove the company into the ground.
When my class graduated from high school in 1975, GM employed 25,000 people here in Saginaw. Now the number's somewhere around 4500 and several hundred of those jobs are probably about to be axed (more likely sent to Mexico, courtesy of Bill Clinton's NAFTA).
While you're so concerned about how the line workers are raking it in, I haven't seen any such concern about the millions your corporate fatcat buddies made yearly in bonuses or the stupid decisions as to which type of vehicles to market or the foreign outsourcing to save a penny on a dollar while killing American cities like mine.
John
Why don't you pack that shit you're peddling into the trunk of your Toyota and take it somewhere else? It's idiots like you that will make organized labor vote Republican here for the first time since Reagan (look it up). Mark my words -- then you can choke on them in 2012.

[Romulox]

38. Er, remember the AIG bonuses? What "revenue" were THOSE paid out of?

(Taxpayer subsidies are a kind of revenue, I guess...) :shrug:

[dionysus]

44. one, you seem to be ignoring that the workers now are part owners of the company,

and two, that if they do return to prosperity, that the workers will automatically get screwed.

"According to restructuring plans proposed this week, the union will have more than half the stock in Chrysler and a third of General Motors, meaning it will have tremendous influence, with the government, in determining the future of the companies.

The United Automobile Workers union said Wednesday that its members ratified a cost-cutting deal with Chrysler by a 4-to-1 margin."

did you even read the damned article?

[Romulox]

47. In other words, your point can't stand up to any comparison whatever. nt

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

87. Considering you don't even have a point, what does that say about you?

[Hannah Bell]

101. the workers aren't the owners. owners can make the decisions.

the UNION holds equity. the workers don't, nor will the workers be making any decisions.

[Telly Savalas]

62. So you support the AIG business model

and want it to be applied to all businesses?

I have a company that sells used dixie cups. Times are tough and revenues can't support my $300K salary, so the government should step in and pay my salary. Just like AIG. And just like what you want for Chrysler.

[Romulox]

69. I support one rule for Wall Street AND Main Street.

What do YOU support? Let them eat cake? :hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

71. Well folks are confused

because we were recently told that flat broke banks simply HAD to pay millions to employees, just to retain talent, and the fact that the banks were unable to pay just meant that we, the taxpayer had to pay.
The problem comes from not knowing which rule book we are working from at any given time. The one for the banks or the one for the rest of us.

[dionysus]

75. well i agree that the banks are bullshitting crooks.

[TBF]

188. When you take that 800K revenue & give 600K to top management

and then say "sorry there's nothing left - simple math" then you are focusing on the wrong side of the equation & your priorities are fucked imho.

Embarrassing to see all this freeper bullshit on a democratic website on may day of all days. Just pathetic.

[scarletwoman]

196. "Embarrassing to see all this freeper bullshit on a democratic website on may day of all days."

It's really sad. Reading through this thread has been quite painful. Why are there so many supply-siders here?

sw

[Two Americas]

197. worse than that

90% of the people here could be supply-siders and I could live with that. I often face those odds when I speak at meetings, and can prevail.

What I object to is the intolerance for, and the attempts to shout down, traditional Democratic party and organized Labor viewpoints, and the relentless campaign to have them seen as unwelcome, fringe, and not worthy of consideration. I have every confidence that when people can hear the left wing point of view and are given a fair chance to consider it, that the majority will support it every time. That is why those pushing conservative political views here never overtly promote or defend them, but rather attack anyone posting left wing ideas or try to break up the discussion.


...

[scarletwoman]

199. It's the manifestation of what you've pointed out many times - people identify with the Ruling Class

They believe that the politicians in the blue jerseys are on their team, so in the spirit of team unity, they seek justify what their politicians do and buy into the framing that informs those actions.

Identifying with the working class would mean giving up their illusions. They'd have to recognize that they're just herd animals to the Ruling Class, no better and no more special than the "sheeple" they love to mock.

sw

[Djinn]

202. nicely and simply put

When you take that 800K revenue & give 600K to top management and then say "sorry there's nothing left - simple math" then you are focusing on the wrong side of the equation & your priorities are fucked imho.

Embarrassing to see all this freeper bullshit on a democratic website on may day of all days. Just pathetic.

:applause:

[JVS]

205. Word

[Two Americas]

42. yes

Yes, I know that the conservatives want to call the race o the bottom a race to the top: dog-eat-dog, every man for himself. Using that as a foundation for any political thinking is basing social policy on appeals to greed and selfishness, rather than cooperation. That is, as I said, the very foundation of conservative politics. So be it, people are free to take that position and I don't see them as demons if they do, but let's no pretend that it is something else - kinda sorta liberal or something - and let's not treat those who take the traditional Democratic and pro-Labor position as though they were some sort of "fringe" or "purists" or outcasts and therefore subject to ridicule, marginalization and dismissal.


...

[Djinn]

200. those people should unionise

like the early auto workers did not piss and moan and be happy about the dragging down of hard fought union wages

[Barack_America]

7. Interesting. That's exactly what I made last year, but no 401K for me.

I live comfortably on it, but I don't have a family to feed. I also have a significant raise to look forward to once I complete training. So I recognize that I'm not in the same boat. I'd sure love a 401K though.

[Romulox]

9. Then I suggest you work HARD to tear down the UAW.

After all, you will feel better about yourself once you drag others down to your level. :hi:

[Barack_America]

12. Wow. What a completely worthless statement. nt

[Two Americas]

20. no it isn't

That is what people are promoting on this thread - trickle down, "ownership society," race-to-the-bottom Reaganomics.

If proper want to express pro-management sentiments and conservative economic ideas, they are free to do so. But please don't ridicule and mock pro-Labor positions on a board full of Democrats. Not all of us have been co-opted and some of us can remember what being a Democrat once meant.


...

[Barack_America]

22. Except that's not what I did.

I stated that I make the same amount as an autoworker start-up, but that though I live somewhat comfortably on it, I'm not trying to support a family on it (as I suspect many autoworkers are). I also know that I will make this amount of money for a short period of time, which makes it more bearable. If this was all I would make for the foreseeable future I would be frustrated.

And yes, I would like a 401K and wish that I had a union representing me so I could get one.

How is that "conservative" or "pro-management"? Way to make ridiculous assumptions and see the very worst in people.

:eyes:

[Two Americas]

48. ok

It as not clear to me from your remarks what you were saying. My apologies if I misread what you were saying. Apparently the other poster did, as well.

What do you want with a 401K? Isn't that the problem? What is wrong with a real retirement package?



...

[Barack_America]

66. Anything's better than what I've got right now...

...regarding a retirement plan.

:shrug:

Believe it or not, I actually am the defender of unions in my family, so my apologies if I got a bit prickly there when I thought you were questioning that. I bring baggage to this issue, you know?

[Two Americas]

84. no problem

It is disturbing how weak people's pro-Labor arguments are, and how many right wing ideas are paraded around in "progressive" clothing. Looks like they will survive here on this thread and live to fight another day.

[Romulox]

40. ...

:toast:

[quiller4]

14. But that isn't what the new agreement calls for. n/t

[Romulox]

43. Illuminate us with the correct information, or... nt

[ProSense]

45. Are you suggesting the UAW sold out it's workers?

They seem to be happy with the agreement.

Do you know something they don't know?

[Romulox]

51. Putting words into another's mouth is the lowest form of "debate" imaginable.

[ProSense]

54. "How has the UAW won ANYTHING?"

Did you say that?

[Hannah Bell]

102. of course they did. #1, the "plan" was made public less than 24 hours before the vote.

that should tell you something right there.

[quiller4]

104. Under the old agreement up to 20% of classifications could be

paid $14-$16 per hour. The new agreement changes the percentage to 25%. There will be more lower paid classifications, it is true, but $14 is not set as a classification-wide starting under either agreement.

[PassingFair]

89. U.A.W. will control half of the stock!

snip> According to restructuring plans proposed this week, the union will have more than half the stock in Chrysler and a third of General Motors, meaning it will have tremendous influence, with the government, in determining the future of the companies. <unsnip

Interesting!

[Hannah Bell]

168. uaw will "control" nothing. the shares will be voted by an "independent trustee". that's part of

agreement.

& the shares were taken in exchange for letting chrysler not pay 5 billion of the 10 billion it owes the workers' pension funds.

and even though the uaw supposedly "owns" 55% of the stock, they get 1 seat on a 9-person board.

the shares cost 5 billion, 1 seat on the board, no voting rights, what a deal.

not to mention the workers made more concessions this round too.

[PassingFair]

176. Hannah Bell....

Do you have a link to the REAL deal?

They "articles" I'm reading contradict
each other.....

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

177. link to one in this post being studiously ignored by all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5573066&mesg_id=5573066

[Two Americas]

180. there you go

Linking to "dogmatic Marxist nonsense" like Bloomberg.

"...equity is small comfort..."

"The United Auto Workers’ equity in Chrysler LLC is small comfort compared with the damage the automaker’s bankruptcy inflicted on the union’s bargaining power, labor analysts said."

"...its power will be limited..."

"While the UAW gained representation on the Chrysler board through the agreement, its power will be limited because shares owned by the trust fund will be voted by independent trustees."

"...Obama said none of the plants would close, and two hours later they sent us home..."

“Obama said none of the plants would close, and two hours later they sent us home,” said Thayer, a 17-year Chrysler veteran. “So now, whom do we call a liar, the president, the UAW or Chrysler, or are they all in bed together?” Thayer asked.

Thayer said that if he loses his job, he can tap his 401(k) savings plan to make his mortgage payments. He’ll have less money in retirement, but at least he’ll have a place to live, he said.


...

[Hannah Bell]

185. not to mention, uaw wrote off 5.3 BILLION chrysler owed their health care fund

for that "55% of the company", with no voting rights & one seat on a 9-person board.

[snooper2]

129. not bad for manual labor with no degree...

I started my first Telecom job making $10.00 hour in 1995...friends went to work at Chrysler making double that.

Of course, we are in different boats now

[Two Americas]

181. dog eat dog

Rising wages anywhere lift wages everywhere.

We should never begrudge other workers winning higher wages and more benefits, unless we are going to accept the conservative view that it is every person for themselves and that we all must be compelled to sell ourselves on the "free market" as though we were a commodity and are prepared to bequeath a dog-eat-dog nightmare of selfishnmess and greed to future gnerations.


...

[Djinn]

203. any reason manual labour shouldn't make decent wages

If your forerunners in the telecom field had organised and fought like generations of auto workers did you would have had a better pay packet.

[KansasVoter]

179. LOL...so they should get lifetime health care like the UAW that broke GM?

[Hannah Bell]

186. gm isn't broke by a long shot. last year alone they built state-of-the-art

plants, one or more, in china, russia, brazil, & other locales.

they'd like to offload their obligations to thei workers, pensioners & dealers, though.

[RollWithIt]

193. I'm a little confused, $14 + 401K + healthcare to START=bad?

Not understanding the reasoning.

[Uzybone]

6. It is a good thing

if the companies return to their prosperous days, the workers will rightly reap the benefits. If the companies fall flat, then the workers will lose anyway.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Precisely.

[Two Americas]

16. trickle down

You are advocating Reaganomics and trickle down ideas. The idea that if the big money people prosper, we will all benefit has been proved to be false by recent events, as much as it ever could be, and has been thoroughly rejected now by the general public or Democrats would not be in office.

What you are promoting is the very essence, the heart and soul, the foundation of conservative politics and everything else pales by comparison and is little more than window dressing.


...

[Uzybone]

17. How is that trickle down?

If shareholders receive dividends from a company is that trickle down? The workers now have a bigger stake (i.e ownership) in the companies they work for. If the company prospers, the workers prosper. How is that trickle down?

[Two Americas]

18. here is what you said

"If the companies return to their prosperous days, the workers will rightly reap the benefits. If the companies fall flat, then the workers will lose anyway."

That is pure trickle down. Every conservative observer would agree with that and would say it the same way. That is exactly what the Republicans said during the "Reagan revolution." How would you define trickle down?

The idea that if more people have their money in stocks that all will be well - didn't we just discover what a hideous joke on the people that is?


...

[ieoeja]

21. No, this is not trickle down.

Trickle down is the horrendously naive assumption that the wealthy will create higher paying jobs for no other reason than that they can afford to pay more.

In this instance the owners could greedily horde every penny and stuff it in their mattress, and the workers still benefit because ... the workers *are* the owners!

[dionysus]

28. incorrect. if the company prospers and the owners keep the money, that's trickle down.

if the worker's pay increases porportionally with increased revenue, it is not.

[Two Americas]

64. of course

What do you think happens in this "ownership society" model?

We have now seen the results. Over the last 30 years everyone got into the stock market and the real estate speculation market. Look around.

Jobs, housing, health care, public education, public transportation, regulation and restriction of capital - that is what we have always stood for as Democrats.

Giving people a "piece of the pie" in the form of taking people's money and throwing it into the "game" of speculation for the Wall Street folks to play with is what we have been trying for the last 30 years. It has failed. The public has rejected it.

The Reagan folks sold u all on this idea - "this is nothing like robber baron capitalism. now we are all going to get rich. we are all going to make money off of money - wheee!" It was a lie. If that is not apparent to everyone now I have no idea hat it would take.

The solution to the social problems caused by the domination of our lives by the bullies and the greedy is not to become greedy bullies. That is what caused the mess, it can never be the path out of the mess.



...

[olegramps]

116. That is not what happen at all.

People investing in companies and reaping the rewards is strickly legitimate and helps drive the economy. The problem is that we were asleep when the greedy bastards deregulated the markets and ripped us off. The people that could have stopped this, Democrats, went right along with them.

[backscatter712]

67. Exactly. In this case, the workers become the owners.

Ideally, I'd also want a UAW representative on the board of directors - that should help to steer the company to make decisions that favor its new owners - the workers.

[Two Americas]

78. that is a conservative approach

The myth that the conservatives promote is that everyone can be a fat cat, and there is nothing wrong with the system.

[dionysus]

79. employee ownership is a conservative approach? come on now, you mean that?

are you saying employee owned = investor owned?

[Alexander]

88. Just another smoove Johnny fanatic pissed that he didn't win.

Never mind that it was fast Eddie's own fault.

[Two Americas]

90. controlled by the investor class

This is no more "employee owned" than having a 401K means you own Wall Street. Control is the issue.

It is divisive for the Union, since the Union will now have to explain rollbacks and cutbacks to the membership - sell them.


...

[dionysus]

91. having a 401k is different than a union having a 50% or 30% stake in the company(that they work for)

unfortunately, rollbacks and cutbacks are necessary because at this point, there is no money left.

if we were having this argument when the auto companies were at the height of their power, i'd agree with you. but this is not the same thing at all.

[Alexander]

92. Hard to give raises with money that isn't there.

[Two Americas]

94. that is the conservative point of view

Where does money come from?

Is it the product of labor, or is labor the product of capital as you imply?

[Alexander]

96. That is the realistic point of view. Nothing conservative or liberal about it.

Newsflash: The auto companies are looking for bailouts because they are broke.

Get over smoove Johnny already.

[Two Americas]

98. that is not relevant

The auto companies being broke is not relevant to the discussion.

Enough with the insults and the revival of feuding from the primaries.


...

[Alexander]

99. It is entirely relevant. You think money will magically appear out of thin air?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JoseGaspar]

110. Yes, magically.

It appeared magically during the Savings and Loan crisis, during the Bank bailout, during the last Chrysler bailout, for AIG, for the major banks.

It is not magic that you oppose. It is only a question of who benefits.

[Two Americas]

124. good point

The debates on this thread are about who should control the wealth and the resources, not about whether there "is" any nor where it comes from.

The right wingers have succeeded in getting many nominal Democrats to think of human beings as merely a commodity to be bought and sold. We can't "afford" people, they are to be seen as an expense or a drain on resources, we don't "have the money" so people must suffer in poverty and insecurity. This is all cleverly couched as "realistic" and "practical" but the disguise falls apart in discussions such as the one here.

What everyone should know is that arguing for capital over labor, not matter how much "progressive" rhetoric is added as a fig leaf, no matter how many "don't get me wrong, I support left wing politics BUT..." disclaimers are added, is still a conservative argument, and it is not a minor or peripheral conservative argument, but rather is the foundation of conservative politics, it is the source of every conservative political position, the common denominator, the root and trunk of conservative politics. Racism, bigotry, poverty - all of these have their roots in the placing of capital above labor, of profits above people, of the individual over the community. I do not understand how anyone can claim to have any political point of view other than a conservative political point of view and deny this, or aggressively argue the other side - argue for government giving more consideration and favors and advantages to capital than labor.

Those conservative arguments can only succeed here, can only be given consideration by thoughtful people, by those who are Democrats, so long as the points are deceptively argued and people can therefore be confused and misled about the subject.


...

[Odin2005]

134. You are projecting your ideology into other people's heads, knock it off.

If Chrysler was a co-op and it was in trouble the employee-owners would still have to cut their own pay because there is not enough income coming in. you are brining in arguments that I agree with for the most part but they are not relevant to a problem that is ultimately an accounting and budgeting problem.

[Two Americas]

138. maybe

I am responding to the conservative arguments being expressed by members here.

The "accounting and budgeting" problem is a matter of those with the power to do so taking too much out of the company for it to survive, and then leaving everyone else hanging out to dry as they take their lucre and go off to other opportunities to exploit workers and loot the country. Saying then that the solution is to cut the workers pay, and suggesting that wages is the problem, is a pro-management and conservative point of view and is at odds with the truth about this as well.


...

[Odin2005]

150. But a Co-op that fell on hard times would have to cut pay too.

If a co-op divides up , say, 80% of its profits equally among it's members and invests the other 20% back into the business, when a bad economy, bad business decisions, or both, reduce the amount of money coming in cuts will have to be made. If you cut too much out of the 20% being re-invested back into the business you risk damaging the long term prospects of the business, and thus the long-term livelihoods of it's members, and thus it would be better to take a pay-cut until profits go back up again.

By saying that this is a "pro-management and conservative point of view" makes you sound like only corporations can make bad business decisions out of a desire for short-term profit for it's shareholders, which is simply wrong. Members of a co-op can be just as stupid and greedy and short-sighted as a corporation's stock-holders.

[Two Americas]

158. so what?

A country that was attacked would be attacked regardless of whether they had a fascist government or a democratic government, and may need to take the same steps in self-defense. That is not a defense of fascism, is it? We do see people say things like "well Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, so...." as an argument against those strongly defending habeas corpus.

As a matter of fact, co-ops are a lot less likely to undergo these upheavals because they are subject to the predations of unregulated and ascendant investment capital.

You are making a pro-management argument - perhaps you are a business owner, and I would imagine a good and compassionate one if you are and I do not see you as the enemy. And of course people could be greedy and short-sighted regardless of the involvement of the government in the economy, and regardless of the business model. But again, that does not justify a system that encourages and rewards - and only encourages and rewards - greed and exploitation.

Nothing wrong with arguing for management - there will always be people who do. No problem. I object to it being called something else, and to the resistance to the pro-Labor point of view being seen as valid or being heard and considered.

(I don't mean to be contentious or malicious in any way with my remarks here, and if I am off base I apologize for that. I think you are a considerate and fair-minded person, and do not mean to paint you as a bad guy.)

I do not agree that corporations have been making bad decisions. They have just not been making decisions that are good for the people. But why should they? They are rewarded for making decisions that harm the people. It is so obvious that it is the working people who are suffering, not the fat cats, and that the big money people made all of their decisions to line their own pockets at the expense of the rest of us, that I don't know how they can be seen as incompetent. They have been wildly successful at looting the country. They are very competent at it, and consistently make the best possible decisions to advance that. Why must we pretend that something else is true with such overwhelming evidence that this is so?



...

[Alexander]

128. And I opposed all of those bailouts.

Because our country literally cannot afford to keep going like this.

Look at the source of the problem: the Federal Reserve. Until we take some drastic measures to curb the influence of the Fed, the value of the dollar will continue to decline until it is completely worthless.

[Two Americas]

141. define "our country"

Who is it that cannot afford us?

[dionysus]

143. obviously the country you live in is populated by elves and unicorns...

:rofl:

[Two Americas]

146. more insults

Do you not realize, or not care, that resorting to insults weakens and discredits your argument?

[Alexander]

152. From the person who attacks me as a McCarthyite? That's rich.

You don't even have an argument. Just drivel.

[dionysus]

156. since you're raving and have no argument, the statement is apropos

[Two Americas]

162. really?

That piques my curiosity.

Do you really think that the things I have written on this thread are "raving" and that I have no argument? That is a stretch, don't you think?


...

[Alexander]

172. Yes, really. Almost everyone on this thread realizes that

except you.

You have no "real world" solution, just ranting and raving about what should be done without considering the way things are right now.

And then you use blanket attacks to portray everyone else as a Freeper or McCarthy supporter.

Most everyone on this thread has figured you out already. You aren't as clever as you think you are.

[Two Americas]

175. that is true

I am seriously out-numbered on this thread, yes. Holding my own, I think though, and doing a good job of not firing back in kind to the insults and attacks. That is not easy to do.

I do a lot of public speaking, often on the most conservative districts, so I have no problem being "the only one" holding a position in a discussion. I can usually prevail despite that. I have much practice at it, and when you are confident in yourself and in what you are saying it is not worrisome to be outnumbered.

I have not made any attempt at talking about what should be done. I don't see that I am required to. I am talking about the anti-Labor and politically conservative views people are expressing. Here is, however, what should be done in my opinion:

The bailout money given to the auto company management and to Wall Street could have been used to hire 20 million people or more at $50,000 a year.

Any help given to the auto companies could have been predicated on protecting the Union and the workers.

We can talk about either of those idea in greater depth, if you like.

As far as the government being broke, well, when you do not tax those who are accumulating and hoarding most of the wealth in the country - wealth created by the working people, not the investors - that is what happens. That is what the right wingers intended to have happen. When you pour out billions and trillions into privatization schemes, the money can disappear in a big hurry. So, the money is not coming in from those who are most able to pay, and yet is going out into the pockets of those very same people. Can you see anything wrong with that picture?



...

[Two Americas]

123. no

Money is a product of work, not the other way around. Money is dependent upon work, work is no dependent upon money. Work creates wealth, wealth does not create work.

Let's look at a simple example from our own history. Pioneers set out to settle a new area, without being capitalized. They build and farm, they hunt and fish, and from that comes money and finance and wealth. Clearly, workers can show up somewhere without capital, without banks and Wall Street, get to work and create wealth. If the bankers showed up in a remote area, no matter how much money they had, nothing would happen without someone working and the bankers would starve. This is not that complicated - it is fundamental to even the most rudimentary understanding of how human societies work, have always worked, can only work, and it seems to me that understanding how human societies work is essential if one is going to understand what it means to be human.

Attempts at portraying what I am saying here as odd, doctrinaire, or extremist is red-baiting and McCarthyism, and that has no legitimate place in any serious political discussion, and no Democrat should ever resort to that since it can only hurt all of us and strengthen the extreme political right wing.


...

[Alexander]

127. Ah, so I'm a McCarthyist if I don't agree with your every word.

:eyes:

Get over smoove Johnny already. It is not I who was duped by a con man.

[Two Americas]

142. of course not

I didn't say you "were" anything, I said that characterizing any point of view other than the conservative view on this as "dogmatic Marxist nonsense" was red-baiting. If that is not red-baiting, what on earth would ever be?

Please refrain from your attempts at rekindling feuds from the primaries, and from kaing personal insults. That weakens your argument and debases the discussion.


...

[Alexander]

151. Stop putting words in my mouth, or is that too difficult for you?

"I said that characterizing any point of view other than the conservative view on this as "dogmatic Marxist nonsense" was red-baiting."

Show me where I claimed anything was "dogmatic Marxist nonsense". I didn't.

You have no argument, so you're resorting to these pathetic - and untrue - attacks.

"Please refrain from your attempts at rekindling feuds from the primaries, and from kaing personal insults. That weakens your argument and debases the discussion."

Yeah, trying to paint me as a red-baiting Joe McCarthy is so much more honorable. :eyes:

If you did any more projecting, they'd sell you at an electronics store.

[Two Americas]

163. right

I didn't say that you said that, that is one example of the red-baiting here.

I am not trying to paint you as anything, you showed up on the thread doing nothing but trying to paint me. I responded, and now you want to play the victim.

I don't know you, don't dare about you, have seen no arguments from you, and have no desire to paint you.

Are you claiming that you did not introduce any references to the primary feuds on this thread? Are you claiming you are not trying make insults?

What is this -

"Just another smoove Johnny fanatic pissed that he didn't win. Never mind that it was fast Eddie's own fault."

...

[Alexander]

171. Stay on topic please. Where is this magical money supposed to come from?

Our bankrupt Treasury?

The bankrupt car companies?

China?

You haven't answered that very simple question. Another sign that you just don't know what you're talking about.

[Two Americas]

182. that has been answered

You don't like the answers, and ignore them, but these questions you keep raising have already been answered.

[Odin2005]

131. "The auto companies being broke is not relevant to the discussion." SELF-PWN!!!

The auto companies being broke has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT!!! You can't pay people money that is not there!

[dionysus]

133. i'm sorry, i have learned that you can't argue with utter dipshits like this clown...

:spray:

[Alexander]

155. This one's just pissy that his hero smoove Johnny turned out to be a fraud.

One of those people who bought Edwards' rhetoric without looking at his actual voting record like the rest of us.

Critical thinking is evidently not his strong suit.

[Two Americas]

164. personal attack

That is a personal attack. It is also another attempt at re-visiting the primary feuds.

[Alexander]

170. And calling me a McCarthyite isn't? Get over yourself already.

You've engaged in just as many personal attacks, if not more, than anyone here.

[Two Americas]

174. didn't do that

I did not say you "were" anything. I criticized what you wrote, not your person.

[Alexander]

178. Equating anything I write with McCarthyism, as you did, is wrong.

Yet, I'm sure you will rationalize away your own attacks while taking great offense at everyone else's.

[Two Americas]

183. I have not done that

You have jumped in in defense of another poster here.

I am not "equating anything you write with McCarthyism" - I have not done anything like that at all.

Once again, as I said earlier when you jumped in to defend another poster and questioned me, I am saying that portraying anything and everything that is not the conservative pro-management point of view as extremist, left wing, or otherwise fringe, dangerous, Marxist etc. and so not worthy of consideration for that reason is red-baiting. That is the provocation and the attack. Pointing out those attacks is not itself an attack.

Do you not understand what red-bating is, not care, hope that others do not know, or are you merely trying to keep it in your arsenal? If there is some explanation for your arguments here other than those I mentioned, then you are free to state what that might be.


...

[Alexander]

191. Rationalize away. Regular as clockwork.

I'm bored with you. Have fun attacking everyone in this thread. Bye now!

[Two Americas]

184. that is right

It is not relevant.

People on this thread are saying that because "Chrysler is broke," therefore the workers must suffer.

But the issue is what caused this "broke" state of affairs, and who should suffer as a result, and what the best way to solve the problem might be. The argument that because "Chrysler is broke" therefore jobs must be lost and wages driven down is a pro-management and conservative point of view, as I have gone to great pains to demonstrate - successfully and beyond a shadow of doubt, I believe.

There is nothing wrong with people expressing conservative political views, in my opinion. I do not fear them, and welcome the debate. I have not objected to people expressing conservative points of view on this. I object to the intolerance, ridicule, and dismissal of any other point of view.


...

[Two Americas]

93. back to the same point

Again, where does money - wealth - come from? Where did it go?

From the point of view of the political right wing, wealth originates with the investors, it comes from capital.

From the point of view of the political left wing, wealth originates from labor, it is generated by the workers.

Therefore, from the point of view of all but the most conservative, there is no such thing as the money "not being there" to pay workers. It works the other way around - labor is required for management to get any wealth. Capital is not required for workers to create wealth, let alone to keep it.

The work creates the wealth. The wealth does not create the work. I posted explanations of this from numerous sources already in this thread, but you keep coming back to it.


...

[dionysus]

97. it boils down to this man. labor is building the cars right now. but it's not capital yet because

people are too broke to buy the fruits that the labor has created. therefore, at this point, the money isn't there.

i don't disagree with your view on labor.

but if no one is buying the product, there is no money.

the fruit is rotting on the vine, but this time it's more than just douchebag investors. ppl can't afford to get cars.

you are arguing a totally different point than i am here.

[Two Americas]

126. "no one is buying the product"

Even Henry Ford knew that he needed to pay the workers enough so that they could afford to buy one of his cars.

I can't believe that we have to defend that idea here among Democrats.

We could have taken the money we handed over to Wall Street, and put 20 million people to work at $50,000 a year. Money would flow, demand for goods and services would increase, wages across the board would rise, morale would soar, and we could rebuild our country.

The reason the money is not there is because the few - the bankers and investors and upper class - robbed the country blind. The people want to work, and they want to but cars. Why would you blame them? Why not blame the obvious people - those who had total control over the money, the money that you now say "is not there." OK. Where the hell is it? It is in the bank accounts of the few, who skimmed and extracted it from the country and lined their own pockets, with the help of the extreme right wing and the Republican party, and with weak or non-existent opposition from the Democratic party.

I am taking a traditional Democratic party and organized Labor point of view on this, if that is OK with everyone lol.


..

[dionysus]

132. you're just rambling by this point. GM is broke, you can't give anyone raises right now.

:rofl:

[Two Americas]

148. who is broke?

Who is it that is broke? Why?

[dionysus]

157. got nothing left huh. your whole "argument" is broke.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Two Americas]

167. it is a serious question

Who is the "we" that cannot afford the workers? Who is it that is too broke to pay the workers?

[Odin2005]

135. Where the wealth comes from is a philosophical issues that is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is something I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON, but that's not relevant. What is relevant is that there is not enough wealth because it was squandered by crap management and thus the enterprise needs to make cuts in order to survive.

[Two Americas]

165. ok

We agree then. Although I do not think that making cuts - particularly to the workers - is the only option.

I also do not think that management squandered the money. I think they pocketed it.

I do not see why "the enterprise" - management - needs to survive, and why that needs to happen by the workers making sacrifices.


...

[scarletwoman]

195. It's fascinating to witness -- people's thinking has been so conditioned to accept the framing

and assertions made by the Owner Class capitalists as the one true picture of reality, that the pro-worker, pro-labor argument is essentially incomprehensible to so many who consider themselves Democrats.

sw

[Hannah Bell]

190. The workers don't get the shares, & the UAW doesn't get to vote the shares.

*If* Chrysler comes out of their slump, the *union* will get some dividends or appreciation of the share value - that's it.

The *workers* get more layoffs & givebacks, & lose $5.3 billion (1/2) of the money chrysler owes to their healthcare fund.

[Hannah Bell]

187. it's not employee owned. the employees don't hold or control the shares, &

even the uaw honchos can't vote them.

the employees get NOTHING but more give-backs & layoffs.

& they lost 5.3 BILLION from their health-care fund in exchange for the useless shares.

[Hannah Bell]

103. no, the workers won't own the company, uaw will hold equity in the company, the

agreement doesn't give them control of the board, & with the company in "bankruptcy," the (supposed) creditors have first dibs on profits & decision-making power.

nice set-up to squeeze more out of the workforce ("hey, you 'own' the company, so you've got to take another pay cut to pay off the creditors, let's all pitch in to rescue 'our' company!"

the workers don't get shit.

[Hannah Bell]

169. THE WORKERS AREN'T THE OWNERS. You're misinformed.

[asphalt.jungle]

80. Reaganomics huh

didn't a large percentage of union members become reagan democrats? they got in bed with that ideology when it was used to pit them against minority groups who were "taking what was theirs." the rot set in a long time ago with the "reagan revolution", this is a salvage job and the best they can hope for.

[Two Americas]

95. they did, as a matter of fact

The big problem now is that Union leadership is aristocratic and running the Unions in undemocratic ways.

Which came first? The betrayal of the workers by the Union leadership and the Democratic party, or the defection of the workers to the Republicans? I say that had the Union leadership and the party not sold the workers out they never would have been vulnerable to being wooed by the Republicans.


...

[JNelson6563]

112. That's kind of what I was thinking.

The big dogs in labor have now achieved a stronger position of power....for themselves. Geez, we thought they had a stranglehold on politics in MI before, that'll be nothing compared to what's coming now.

Julie

[olegramps]

115. Your argument assumes that the "big people will prosper."

It would seem to me that what has been wrong was that the big people were allowed to proper at the expense of the workers. The big people being the professional managers who controlled the Board of Directors and brought these companies to ruin with their unjustified bonuses, golden parachutes, and lousy management.

Now it would seem to me that if the unions control a large percentage of the stock that these practices could be curtailed and perhaps these companies could recover. Maybe they could even get managers that know what and how the hell the things they are attempting to sell are actually built. It would be a situation in which the company prospered, not one that you categorize as one in which only the managers proper and the worker gets what trickles down.

[Two Americas]

144. they always do

The big people always prosper. Not sure how anyone can fail to notice that. The everyday people in the general public well know that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" and in that way they are far to the Left politically from many of the people here - the same people here who believe and promote the endlessly repeated MSM lie that we have a "center-right" country.

The auto companies can only be seen to have had lousy management if we assume they cared about the quality of the product, the strength of the community, the well-being of the workers, the survival of the companies, and the future of the country. I see no evidence that those were concerns for them. They can hardly be seen as failures when they did not intend to do anything differently, and when they wildly prospered personally as a result of their decisions.


...

[JVS]

11. 401k. Good to see Wall Street got their cut

:eyes:

[Two Americas]

19. no, no , no

If we put everyone's money into the stock market, then we all prosper. See? Aren't you greedy? Don't you want in on the action? What are you? Some sort of Democrat? That is seen as being "fringe" and a "purist" around here.


...

[dionysus]

25. you know, if you have a 401k, you can put the money in cash and bonds... you don't need to gamble

with stocks you know.

i'd prefer a pension myself, but hey...

[LiberalFighter]

13. Pensions need to come back but not under the control of a company.

It should be at least under control of an independent group not owned by the company. And fully paid up each year. I would have no problem with a union managing it in those cases where the employees are union.

[uponit7771]

32. Good, the company is in THEIR hands now and they get to set rules instead of one person tanking them

[Two Americas]

63. "their"

It always surprises me to see people who are struggling described as "them" here - be it Union workers, people of color, poor and homeless people, public school teachers or GLBTQ people.

Is it not our struggle? If "they" are not "us" then we have no integrity when we say "don't get me wrong I support your cause, BUT..." and then claim that this makes us liberals or Democrats.

Organized Labor is the path to giving people control over their own lives, not the "ownership society" myth. Speaking as a Democrat, that is.

This is akin to the arguments we often hear - "hey, if you don't like your situation, why don't you get to work and become a capitalist yourself?" In other words, the only way to survive is to emulate the bullying and greedy few - no more than 12% of the population according to Pew Research - otherwise, too bad and you are on your own.


...

[Bodhi BloodWave]

83. simple question for ya

Since i live in Norway, should i have been referring to the group as 'us' or as 'them'

I would say 'them' is the accurate term since 1: i don't work in that business, 2: i don't belong to the union, and so on. Every use of 'them' is not meant as an insult and i strongly doubt the poster you replied to meant it as one.

I must also admit i fail to understand how you can consider the fact that the workers now owning part of the companies as being trinkle down if they gain money by the company doing well but would lose if it fails(common sense dictates that if a business you own a part of does well then you will earn more then if the said business fails)

[Two Americas]

85. depends on the context

I am pointing out that people often betray their allegiance and identification with the pronouns they use. For example, more conservative people here routinely say "we" when they are talking about the rulers and things the rulers do, while saying "them" or "their cause" when talking about persecuted or oppressed people.

This is because in modern liberalism, the people dominating the discussion strongly identify with the rulers, yet maintain a fiction of being on the side of the people. "Don't get me wrong I support (insert left wing cause) BUT (insert right wing argument)" is the way this contradiction is expressed. This is the way that any hint of opposition to the rulers and the dominant social group is neutered and co-opted.


...

[uponit7771]

105. You need to chill for real, THEIR in context was NOT meant to be passive derisive, I'm not a reThug

...and this isn't freeperVille the benefit of the doubt SHOULD be extended.

BTW: What Obama did is supported by some of the most hard care righties I know, it puts the future of those jobs in the hands of people who have a vested interest in the company doing better in the long run.

[Two Americas]

149. no one said that you were

No one said you "were" a rethug - whatever that means.

The conservatives oppose everything that is even mildly oppositional to the ruling class, and attack everything that Democrats do. So what? That does not mean that everything they oppose we should meekly support, does it?

Do you think that only "rethugs" identify with the ruling class, with the wealthy and powerful?


...

[JoseGaspar]

86. It's too late for this debate.

It should have happened when the car companies were the biggest and most profitable companies in the world. They didn't modernize their production or develop new technology or increase productivity. They distributed their profits or put them in other lines of "business". Now they cry that they are too poor to pay their workers what they were promised. Fine.

Nationalize the car companies, pay the workers what they were promised, modernize using government capital (anyone want to whine about the "efficiency" of private enterprise or the free market?), build cars according to national priorities (such as emissions and gasoline usage), protect them through tariff protection, and give the finger to anyone who cries that their Lexus is a lot more expensive.

The race to the bottom is a race for everyone, worldwide. Compensate the countries that lose be removing free trade requirements forced on THEIR import/export trade and level the playing field by re-defining foreign exchange.

Let International Capital go back to engineering coups like they are supposed to. This Reagan shit is for the birds.

[alwysdrunk]

108. "build cars according to national priorities"

And then what? Allocate a automobile credit to every family? Sell them with a subsidy? Not make people want to buy them?

[JoseGaspar]

109. It happens now.

What do you think product placements are? Marketing campaigns? Rebates, low financing, lease deals? Buy that SUV or pickup, the bigger the better. Make big bucks while the cost of gas is low. When its over? Capital moves on. Sell that GM stock; buy another.

Detroit dies so that the vampires may live.

Subsidize simple hybrid cars; jack up the price of the other shit. It's simple.

Does that impose on your freedom? Take it up with the workers in Detroit. They have a lot of freedom at the moment - mostly free time.

[Two Americas]

153. good post

"Capital moves on." That is an important point. The workers are stuck, but the big money people can move on and are in great shape no matter how much damage they did to the company or the community. The mechanism by which capital - in other words, the fortunes of the very wealthiest few - is freed up from any responsibility or negative consequences from their own destructive actions is Wall Street. The idea that if we (the people is what I mean when I say "we" not the rulers and the wealthy as so many here mean when they say "we") pour more money into Wall Street we will all prosper because it will somehow trickle down, or because they supposedly are cutting us in on the action, or that the health of the economy is measured by the health of Wall Street is so absurd, and so politically conservative, that it amazes me that it gets any serious consideration by people here let alone gets presented as "reality" that can not be questioned or argued against.


...

[Dinger]

117. What About Retiree's Benefits?

My dad is a 78-year old retiree from Chrysler. I've asked repeatedly about this, and have gotten precious little for answers.

[tomreedtoon]

140. Critical question: will they make cars that are worth a damn?

We've seen the piles of rust Detroit has turned out in the last few years, and why Asian cars have done so much better. Now, will the union guys - who theoretically know what makes a good car from building them all day - help make these cars something ordinary people want to buy? That's the only question for us non-UAW people out here.

[TBF]

189. Good question -

and why do they consider to pay the executives such outrageous salaries for producing crap, if that is the case? The Union guys have no control over what is produced. We are the workers, we do what we are told. Isn't that the way you owners want it? And why am I arguing with owners on a democratic website?

[tomreedtoon]

192. I think it's workers talking amongst themselves.

TBV said, "And why am I arguing with owners on a democratic website?"

Yes, I don't think bosses visit here. At least, not the bosses of Anti-Christler. I think this is a place where the workers meet to boost each other's courage and consider what they will do when they control the company.

[TBF]

194. Read the thread and tell me why workers would be advocating supply side economics and

breaking unions. We've been infiltrated. If not, worse.

[Djinn]

204. Unfortunately it's the latter

I don't think there's any influx of right wing people to DU, it's that what passes for left/progressive (whatever you want to call it) is pretty miserable in most of the developed world and really really depressing awful in the US. I bet everyone of the posters on this thread proclaiming it had to be done and/or think it's a good thing view themselves as solidly pro-labor