Nathan Scandella (personal)

Senate is Bailing Out

So, the Senate has decided to can the auto bailout. While I'm disappointed that something couldn't have been worked out, I also was concerned that this would have been just more corporate welfare without strings. Not only did I fear that fuel efficiency concessions wouldn't have been attached to bailout funds, it looked like the funds themselves might be raided from a pool of money already approved to help automakers retool for efficiency. It also looked like serious concessions from the autoworkers union (UAW) weren't going to happen.

I'm personally of the opinion that unions are ruining American competitiveness (at least with competitors who aren't also crippled by unions). There's not much too be happy about in our current situation, but one thing I view opportunistically is our relationship with unions in this country. It seems that with so many businesses (and workers) in dire straights, this is the perfect time to get concessions from unions that have a stranglehold on their industries.

Take the autoworkers union. These guys, on average get paid $30/hr, and have benefits that exceed that value. For the mathematically challenged, that equates to about a $60k annual salary for an employee who works no overtime. And believe me about these two points:

• union workers go home when the bell rings


• union workers who do work overtime get paid a handsome premium for those extra hours

Most working folks put in more than 40 hours per week, don't get paid for the overtime, and still bring home less than $60k per year. Why do autoworkers think they should be able to make that kind of money? School teachers make less money, and they typically have to go to college and get a Masters' degree. I don't understand why a job you get trained to perform by your employer, that doesn't require a special talent, that comes with great benefits, and as much job security as anyone, should pay that much.

In our society, when employers cooperate to suppress the salaries of their respective employees, that's called "collusion", and it's illegal. Why is it legal for employees to do the opposite to employers? I have no problem with someone who feels underpaid simply giving notice, and leaving. But, union workers feel they have a God-given right to work where they work, and get paid whatever they like. And they are willing to cripple their employer for a few weeks every few years to prove it. In which case, everybody loses, including the customers (society-at-large).

Big Auto CEOs got lambasted for having "their heads in the sand". I couldn't agree more. But, employees who feel a sense of entitlement to the high-paying job they got with no education, are just as guilty of this lack of vision. The economy is crumbling around them. If they don't make major concessions, their employers (and their competitors) will soon be out of business. And where will that leave them?

My guess is, they'll still be stuck upside down on that same sandy beach ...

on the shores of Lake Michigan ...

in winter, freezing their asses off.

Pity.

Posted at 01:56AM Dec 12, 2008 by Nathan in Economics  |  Comments[0]