Are unions to blame for automakers failure?
Today’s newspapers are reporting that after record job losses, Congress will move toward providing “a short-term rescue plan” for the nation’s top automakers. I’m no expert, but whatever funds are provided should come with an equal load of stipulations—from payback plans and executive salary caps, to a focus on developing fuel-efficient, alternative-energy autos. Earlier today, I overheard this comment: “What’s wrong with the Democrats is they’re always kowtowing to the unions” as if the need for the bailout is the fault of the auto unions. Is it the unions who shoulder the brunt of blame regarding the terrible mess that is the U.S. auto industry? After four years of working on the other side of the table with a variety of school-related unions, I am not naïve to the downsides of the power unions wield, but I find it difficult to fathom that this mess is their doing in any significant way. Although I don’t have details regarding the benefits and salaries auto workers receive, I got a compelling email from an acquaintance, which I share below:
“The anti-union organizations and the Bush union busters want you to believe the lies that they have saturated the media with. They want you to believe that the United Auto Workers are the cause of the downfall of the auto industry. They want you to believe that union workers make $70 an hour and that’s why the auto industry has failed and needs a bail out. Lies, and more lies. The average auto worker and machinist starts at about $14 an hour…The UWA union, in order to help the industry, took pay cuts and reductions in medical coverage, and more, while the CEOs continued to make millions of dollars—all while producing gas-guzzling cars no one wanted.”
Determining the reasons for the industry’s failure are important because before Congress provides one cent to this cause, American taxpayers deserve a plan to turnaround the mistakes of the past, restrictions on how the funds are used, and a payback schedule.