Republicans will fight a "Big-3" deal because they need their two-tier strategy to continue

[SoCalDem]

Big-3 auto makers have "legacy costs" because they have been around for a LONG time.. The "southern/foreign" car ventures are relatively YOUNG, and I'd be willing to bet that not many old-timers from the Big-3, "migrated" with them to the "new facilities" when they relocated.

It's the same strategy they love, when it comes to "private health insurance".. they love to peel off the sickest/oldest people , and put them in a separate group (by virtue of the unaffordability/pre-existing condition" factors..

In theory, insurance is "available" to anyone...IF you can afford it.. The ONLY thing that keeps ANY private insurance "affordable" to individuals, is that the "costly applicants/customers" have been "pre-trimmed" from the plan.

If republicans can thwart any real legislation regarding the Big-3, they can also just stand by while they implode, and not be held responsible by their mouth-breathing Ayn Rand-loving supporters.

Republicans LOVE legacies when it involves getting their own kid selected into a school they don't have the grades for, or for cushy lobbying jobs..but when the word "legacy" can be applied to business (unless it's one of their own) they draw the line. They prefer to use workers up, like kleenex, and then toss them in the trash. This is why they abhor unions, because unions actually require that workers have protection, and that they receive the DEFERRED pay they have coming to them... in the form of pensions & old age benefits they earned over a lifetime of labor..

Breaking up unions & paring down the insurance "eligibility" rules are the cornerstones of republican legislation.

What SHOULD be the subject of discussion ......

1) Instituting universal health-care ASAP, to relieve the employers of the added financial responsibility they have taken on, in times past..when coverage was still affordable

2) Making "right-to-work" illegal...unless it matches union wages/benefits.

3) Making health-care provisions an INDUSTRY-WIDE option...like the federal workers' plans.. All federal workers have basically the same options..making it affordable because of the size.. Perhaps the insurance obligations of ALL auto manufacturers should be rolled into one giant group.. That would effectively balance the load.. The Big-3's higher costs because of older retired, would be added to the younger, less costly workforce of the "new kids on the block"..

4) Not allowing states to offer free land, free roads, free tax breaks as incentives to re-locate, unless those perks are also "monetized" and TAXED at the federal level...and included in the business plan, and carried on the books of the companies..

The problem is not so much that the Big-3's costs are too high..as it is that the "others" are too low..because of all the benefits they received for locating in new areas, and by paying less to their workers..


The ability to jettison responsibilities is only "acceptable" in business.. An ex who does not pay child support is a paraiah, a person who cheats on a sick spouse, with a younger healthier person is a pariah, a person who drops off kids they no longer want to support is a pariah, a person who signs mortgage papers and then walks away is a pariah (considered so by some)..but a business that dumps the older workers high and dry, can expect to see their stock rise, garner huge bonuses, and be praised as a "shrewd businessperson" by many..:grr:

* the whole legacy thing is not entirely a republican invention...This is what bothers me about both parties when it comes to political office, and it's also why we end up with sons-ofs and daughters-ofs & wives-ofs in positions they may not be qualified for..

[ipfilter]

1. Point number 2 is a bit misguided

Right to Work laws make compulsory union dues illegal. In a Right to Work state a union cannot force an employee in a "closed" shop to pay any dues as a condition of employment. In a non Right to Work state they can. That is really the only difference.

[burythehatchet]

9. That's quite odd. In any employment agreement I've seen in GA (right-to-fire-

for-whatever-fuckin-reason-we-want), the only real point the employer highlights is the right to terminate you at any time without cause.

[ipfilter]

12. That has nothing to do with Right to Work laws.

The term Right to Work means you have a right to work in a union shop without being a part of the union. It is an attempt to weaken unions by basically allowing scab workers the same union protections without paying dues. Right to Work seems to get confused with "At Will" employment for some reason.

There are two things that make a strong union. Solidarity amongst the members and dues to help pay for the cost of CBA negotiations. Some of the money collected in dues goes to make political contributions to pro labor candidates....that means Democrats.

Right to Work laws hit unions right where it counts...by not allowing them to compel members to pay any dues as a condition of employment. CBA's contain language in non Right to Work states which compel a company to fire workers who might refuse to pay dues. Right to Work laws outlaw this type of language in a CBA.

While I don't agree with this website, www.righttowork.org, it does contain the bare facts regarding Right to Work. You can click on their map and read the actual Right to Work law for each state. They are all basically the same. These laws are always sponsored and supported by the right wing and their aim is to hit unions in the pocket book.

[Mike 03]

2. I agree that anyone against the "Bail Out" who fixates on the unions and workers

is despicable and disingenuous, to say the least.

The larger issue, IMO, is legitimate, and even liberal economists are questioning (and I'm being generous here--many of them are ridiculing) the notion of bailing out the auto makers, because these companies are most likely beyond repair, and it's pretty obvious to anyone who has taken the time to review their balance sheets.

But I couldn't agree more that to scapegoat the union workers, in this case, is an abomination. It's the lowest of the low rhetorical technique, and it has nothing to do with the real issues here. It's obvious who the culprits are, and they are at the top of the ladder and middle management.

[SoCalDem]

4. I don't know whether a bail out/loan will work or not

and I agree that they have had BAD management for a LONG time, but the management is NOT union, and it pisses me off to see the whole issue pegged as a "union-problem"..

They have a AGE problem and a Mis-management problem, and the haste-factor is what bothers me.. I would like to see a "mini-bailout" followed by MANDATED changes and a total replacement of upper-echelon management.

Some of the "brands" are not feasible, and should probably go..but not before some serious investigation happens..

Hummer needs to go...like years ago.. The HUGE suvs need to GO ASAP..and where there is duplication, one needs to go byebye..

They need to focus on a "car of the people"..affordable, reliable, & energy efficient...a modern day "Bug"..

The goal should be to get the OLD cars off the road, and to encourage people to replace them with newer ones.. That cannot happen when cars are so costly..

[mrcheerful]

6. But remember these tactics work with the nit wits out there who are

jealous of anyone getting more then themselves think they are more entitled to. It's this petty jealousy that allowed them to follow republicon thinking that no one works as hard as the republicon supporter. Everyone else out there just want to sit on their sofa's watching cable TV and free load off the system.

[Mike 03]

3. Also, I totally agree with your last (asterisked) point about legacy not being a nefarious

Republican invention.

I have to say I very much look forward to your posts. You always have something worthwhile to contribute.

[SoCalDem]

5. Thanks, Mike

:hi:

[bvar22]

7. I EXPECT Republicans to fight the Unions.

I am glad that this is coming to a vote.
It will be interesting to see how many "Democrats" join with the Republicans, and to which wing of the Democratic Party they belong.

[burythehatchet]

10. I hate being so repetitive...The Democrat/Republican division is phony

It is how they keep from having to do the will of the people. Most Dems and Republicans want the same things. But by dividing us the way they do, our interests never get addressed.

The divide is between capital and labor. And ironically, labor is bailing out capital in 2008.

[FriendlyReminder]

8. Let's just pass thing thing ourselves. We don't need the republicans.

If we do this, we can drive another stake into the heart of those heartless bastards...however that works :-)

[BlueManDude]

11. I said this 2 weeks ago - wait until Jan 20 and do it right.