Last week, I participated in a diary comment thread and speculated that the insurgence of the Japanese automakers (hybrids in particular) at the expense of the unionized American auto industry represented a significant net negative for the progressive movement, and even for environmentalists. Predictably, this argument didn't win me too many friends....and I'm sure there are plenty of hybrid fans gritting their teeth as they read it now. I ask that skeptics bear with me as I elaborate on this thesis, and see if you still believe that the ongoing Wal-Martization of the auto industry represents a net positive for the progressive movement or for the environment.
The Japanese automakers made a calculated business decision to increase their market share in the American auto market a generation ago, shrewdly applying a Wal-Mart business model by constructing manufacturing plants in the American South. They offered a comparatively generous wage and benefit package that effectively dissuaded their conservative-minded Southern employees from joining the United Auto Workers. The framework was set to take full advantage of the high labor costs and diminishing automobile quality of Ford and General Motors.
To the credit of Toyota, Honda, and Nissan, they couldn't have asked for a better payoff for their investment. American consumers have cheered the arrival of the proverbial trojan horse every step of the way, with most apathetic to the predatory nature of the Japanese automakers' endgame....to vaporize the domestic competition and restructure the auto industry much the way that Wal-Mart restructured the retail business. Making matters worse, these Southern auto plants are so heavily subsidized the public coffers of the states in which they located that they're essentially government jobs. The corporate welfare kitty for one of Alabama's plants built in the 1990's was in excess of $400 million.
In sharp contrast to the success of the Japanese automakers and its business model is the spectacular decline of the American automakers. I make no apologies for the arrogance and poor business decisions of Ford and General Motors, who have both been contributors to the Republican Party in an attempt to consistently hold off emission reduction requirements. I would brush off their loss of market share as a deserved consequence of bad corporate decisions if they operated in a bubble. But they don't operate in a bubble. If the American automakers go down, the United Auto Workers goes down with them. The UAW is one of the few remaining institutions making middle-class lifestyles avaiable for blue-collar Americans. Progressive economic goals will be dealt a devastating blow if we continue to yawn at the UAW's meltdown.
With that in mind, my sadness turns to rage when I see so many Kossacks practically cheering on the bankruptcy of Ford and General Motors, and by proxy, the UAW. I'm not a member of the UAW, but I have witnessed the heavy lifting they do for the Democratic party each election cycle, both in terms of campaign contributions and aggressive GOTV efforts. I can unequivocally say that without the efforts of the UAW, neither Al Gore or John Kerry would have won Wisconsin, they would have likely not won Michigan, and they wouldn't have even made a contest in the otherwise hopeless Ohio. Spencer Abraham would still be Michigan's junior Senator without the UAW, and Sherrod Brown wouldn't have a prayer of winning this fall's Ohio Senate race. The bottom line is that the Democratic influence of the American auto industry's union workforce vastly outweighs the political influence of their short-sighted Republican employers.
So let's take a look into the window of the domestic auto industry's future if the UAW goes the way of mastadon. Even though the Southern autoworkers have resisted attempts to unionize, they are nonetheless piggybacking on decades worth of hard-fought collective bargaining on the part of the UAW. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan aren't paying these generous wages in Southern right-to-work-law states out of the goodness of their hearts, they're paying them as a disincentive for the workers to organize. If the UAW collapses, the Japanese automakers no longer have any incentive to continue offering middle-class wages. Expect calls for deep and bruising concessions for Toyota, Honda, and Nissan's American unorganized employees, who will have no leverage in negotiating themselves a better deal.
And that's the optimistic prognosis for the future of automobile manufacturing in America. Once the Japanese automakers have accomplished their endgame of crushing the competition and centrallizing market share, why would they bother to stick around when they have an entire globe full of cheaper alternatives (think China and Mexico) at their disposal? Considering that taxpayers in the various states that are home to these Japanese auto plants have financed so much of the construction of their manufacturing facilities and have abated the companies' tax burdens for many years, they have scarce financial investment in their domestic production, making it very easy to cut and run the second the existing business conditions no longer convenience them.
But let's assume the former scenario plays out and the Japanese automakers maintain a continued presence in the American South. Does anyone believe that after they consolidate the automobile industry market share, they'll be any less arrogant or risk-averse in their design strategies than Ford or GM have been in the last quarter century? And doesn't anybody have a problem financially empowering a region of the country responsible for electing Richard Shelby, Jim Bunning, Jeff Sessions, Lamar Alexander, and Mitch McConnell to the United States Senate?
That's the ultimate irony here. So many progressives are patting themselves on the back for helping score a "victory for the environment" when they purchase a hybrid import, but are essentially giving validation to the anti-labor orthodoxy of a region of the country that consistently elect lawmakers who are unapologetically hostile to environmental causes. How are environmental goals met by turning over the keys of the auto industry away from union workers who elect progressives and towards non-union "values voters" who elect people who don't even believe global warming exists?
For those interested in saving the American industry, a third way exists, a satisfying middle ground is emerging. At this point, even the cluelessly out-of-touch American car companies have gotten the hint and started to produce a number of hybrids. Even the fiercest critics of Ford and GM around here should give them the benefit of the doubt with all that's at stake. Allowing the Wal-Mart business model of the Japanese automakers to hijack another American industry should be unacceptable to everyone here. I suspect that many here would have to swallow their pride to purchase another vehicle (even a hybrid) from Ford of GM, but unless you're willing to see the progressive movement further marginalized, I'd strongly suggest doing just that.
And for the continued skeptics who maintain unconditional love for their Toyota Priuses and are still unconvinced by my argument, I close with this question: Do you really believe the marginal emission reductions coming from your Japanese hybrid are significant enough to undo the inaction of anti-environment politicians elected from the profits of those same hybrids?