Nearly forty years has passed since the last time GM workers have walked off the job and striked against the American automaker behemoth. Since then 327,000 workers have been let go as General Motors has moved much of its operations overseas, going for reduced costs over the American worker. The Michigan economy is now at the center of what sociologists deemed the "rust belt." So now in 2007, what will this strike accomplish for a diminished union? Everyone seems to have an opinion, both on the internets and in print. Some bash the union, others see this as a looming problem and also as a non-issue for suppliers. How does one tell?
It is true that the union's strength has weakened considerably in the past few decades. Yes, it can be very ugly for UAW members while GM gets pinched somewhat. But lets take a step back here. What is the strike all about? According to UAW head Ron Gettelfinger, its everything that we hold dear for the middle class.
From USA Today:
After negotiating nine days past the expiration of its last four-year contract with GM, the UAW set the strike deadline and told workers to wait to hear from their local leaders. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger began feeling a strike was looming as early as last Thursday, he said in a press conference, when GM stopped bargaining on most issues. Both sides worked through the night Sunday into Monday, but Gettelfinger said GM refused to move its position on all but one issue.
"The company walked right up to the deadline like they really didn't care," he said.
He said job security is his priority, and he stressed that the talks did not break down over a proposed trust to deal with retiree health care, which GM wants to create so it can move about $5.1 billion in costs off its books.
"This is very serious, but there's not a single person here who wanted this to result in a strike," he said. "There comes a time when you have to draw the line. We were pushed into a strike."
That is the problem here. GM (and other multi-national corporations) simply do not care about American workers. In our ever-increasingly competitive world, corporations are trying to reduce costs at the workers' expense. The attitude is that if they don't like it, we'll move somewhere cheaper. Is that what America is about?
Hardly. Those that went on strike starting in the late 1800s were Americans who helped set up the lifestyles we have now. Back then there was no leisure time because everyone was working in sweatshop conditions. Advances in technology along with the securing of benefits from strikes and the increased power of collective unions built the middle class.
Of course, we all know where President Bush will mark his territory on this issue. He cares about those who have given to his campaigns and the Republican party. That goes for the rest of them in the GOP. On an individual level some might be sympathetic to these workers, but many have been blinded by the culture of corporate greed.
Why does that matter? It matters because it is up to our elected officials to set policy that helps all Americans, not just their campaign contributors. Job security is a gold-standard in Japan and they manage to keep costs down. Health care is provided in most industrialized countries so that cuts costs to the employer. (something that would help both worker and employer). In our country we let the "free market" decide who gets health insurance while others make sure their citizens are taken care of.
So ultimately, this is a matter of whether we want to take care of workers or.....the status quo.
