Legislative Union Busting

The auto industry goes and the recession turns into a depression. Right? The auto industry goes and some of the the major labor unions, the one institution powerful enough to *somewhat* balance multinational corporate power, lose their one last major source of revenue. That is, unions effectively disappear. Oh, they'll be a few left, but they will be even more in retreat. Senate republicans would like, and I will not soon forget this because they were the first words I heard this morning when the alarm went off, "auto workers in America to take a pay cut to make their wages proportional to foreign auto workers." The claim is that this will make us more competitive. I have for many years feared the rhetoric of "competitive labor markets" because it means that in order to be competitive the American worker must accept the wages of workers in Indonesia or Bangladesh or China. Why, I wonder, do these dyed in the wool patriots think Americans should accept the labor standards of some country? Here's a bumper sticker for you: Globalizing Labor Is Globalizing Poverty. Let's say it again: Globalizing Labor Is Globalizing Poverty. Though I have to say I applaud the sophistry that makes labor markets in places like Laos seem like a goal to achieve rather than a horror to avoid. That it happens to be Japan's labor standards in this particular case does not matter, once labor is unregulated and our entire yearly tax revenues are owed to other countries because of enormous debt, what's the point of even having a government? Oh, right, many of us don't want a government, I keep forgetting. Look, libertarians, your about to get played. This is not a plan that will in any sense make you more free. We'll be governed anyway, it just won't be a democratic form of government. I think I'm beginning to get the picture though: Once auto manufacturers fail, unions may be brought down, and if you add an economic depression, voila, the perfect storm. It's elegant, really. I'm not certain of much but I am absolutely sure the prospect of starvation will make the American worker very competitive. We should think of it as a form of training, it will make us as competitive as all the other starving, desperate people in the world. Charming. And lastly, look, I don't especially like labor unions, they can be corrupt and awful. If they got too much power they would be as evil as corporations. We shouldn't probably even have them. But we shouldn't have corporations in their current form that allows them to accrue so much power, either. So I'll quit supporting unions when the government revokes the corporate charter of corporate enterprises that commit crimes like Exxon, Bechtel, Halliburton.

Comments

[Parmenides]

Yup, the problems of corporate America is that workers get paid too much. I wish all the people that say that would actually work in a factory and see how far that pay gets them.

Very few people make the point you make, which is the real crux of the issue. The logic is always to spiral down. So if there is a disparity in pay, we have to knock the high earners down.

Why not spiral up, and use globalization as a way to force developing nations to accept labor unions, tough environmental laws, the rule of law, lawsuits against corporate malfeasance, etc...?

There is no real reason it cannot work that way, except that those who set up globalization, i.e., banks and corporations, do not want it to.

I find it ironic that at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is at its highest since right before the Great Depression (after years of laissez faire economics by Republicans), we seem to think the problem is that factory workers get paid too much. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

[Parmenides]

Yup, the problems of corporate America is that workers get paid too much. I wish all the people that say that would actually work in a factory and see how far that pay gets them.

Very few people make the point you make, which is the real crux of the issue. The logic is always to spiral down. So if there is a disparity in pay, we have to knock the high earners down.

Why not spiral up, and use globalization as a way to force developing nations to accept labor unions, tough environmental laws, the rule of law, lawsuits against corporate malfeasance, etc...?

There is no real reason it cannot work that way, except that those who set up globalization, i.e., banks and corporations, do not want it to.

I find it ironic that at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is at its highest since right before the Great Depression (after years of laissez faire economics by Republicans), we seem to think the problem is that factory workers get paid too much. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

[Parmenides]

Yup, the problems of corporate America is that workers get paid too much. I wish all the people that say that would actually work in a factory and see how far that pay gets them.

Very few people make the point you make, which is the real crux of the issue. The logic is always to spiral down. So if there is a disparity in pay, we have to knock the high earners down.

Why not spiral up, and use globalization as a way to force developing nations to accept labor unions, tough environmental laws, the rule of law, lawsuits against corporate malfeasance, etc...?

There is no real reason it cannot work that way, except that those who set up globalization, i.e., banks and corporations, do not want it to.

I find it ironic that at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is at its highest since right before the Great Depression (after years of laissez faire economics by Republicans), we seem to think the problem is that factory workers get paid too much. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.