Fifteen years ago in Australia, where I live, everybody used to drive either a (GM)Holden or a Ford. You might see the odd Japanese car on the road, but that's it.
In 2009, Australians don't just buy Holdens and Fords. They buy Mazdas, Mitsubishis, Toyotas, Hondas and other cars. The most popular car sold in Australia last year was a Mazda.
Does anyone here really think that this change is solely because GM and Ford's (and Chrysler's) labour costs are higher? Labour costs are a part of it but so is the quality of product and the competency of management.
Japanese car makers have done their research and they know a lot better what products people want in regards to cost, value, service, size, fuel efficiency and quality of product.
Japan's car industry has adjusted very quickly to the needs of the market. GM and Ford in Europe have also adjusted - you can see that very easily with cars like the Ford Focus and the Opel Vectra. They do this because they recognise that huge cars are the way of the past - people want something with good fuel efficiency. The USA's fuel efficiency standards have been shocking for years, and it's been a cultural thing for ages to have a huge car - but attitudes have changed way faster in decent times as fuel prices started hitting hip pockets and Climate Change entered the public consciousness. Japan has been busy for years building a better Prius. What is America building? Bloody Hummers! Big sedans!
Now let me ask - who is to blame for this? The union?
UAW do not manage GM, Chrysler and Ford - that is the job of the CEO of each respective company. I think it was perfectly reasonable to ask for the head of the CEO - it is his responsibility to ensure the profitability of the company, he hasn't done it, so fair enough.
Secondly, UAW themselves. By blaming UAW for this crisis, you are by stealth supporting this particular argument:
"GM, Ford and Chrysler would be profitable if only they didn't have a unionised workforce with generous pay and conditions."
Has anybody bothered to check whether this claim is true? Is the higher cost of labour at GM equal to the difference between the profitability of companies like Toyota and the dire situation that US automakers find themselves in?
Has anyone bothered looking into this argument? Would GM, Ford and Chrysler be on a level pegging with the other car manufacturers if those conditions were stripped away? I don't buy it. In fact, it sounds like right-wing spin to me. To use higher labour costs as an excuse hides another problem - what I believe to be incompetent management over a number of decades.
You cannot blame the UAW for fighting for better pay and conditions - that's what Unions do. Just as CEO's have an obligation to shareholders, union leaders also have an obligation to their members to put that case to management. But it's the responsibility of management to ensure they make agreements with the Union that they know can be fully funded - if they can't, they're being irresponsible. Not only that, they weren't up front with the union in the first place about what they could afford to cough up in the form of pay rises. Unions rely on this sort of information to form wage claims in bargaining.
Believe it or not, most unions are actually perfectly reasonable - and there's a very simple reason. "The Union" isn't a soulless entity. Unions are people! Unions are their members. Unions are in fact very democratic (or they should be - I'm not sure about UAW, but mine is). When presented with a choice, people don't take decisions they know will cost them their job, but nor will they take a decision that puts them in poverty. Most people are very pragmatic, and I expect Auto workers are no different. You can see how pragmatic they have already been over the past few decades, negotiating away a number of pay and conditions. A decision like that wouldn't have been made by some union hack somewhere - that decision would have been made in close consultation with members, talking with each other and with their union organsier. Union members have given ample opportunity for their bosses to restructure the business - and they haven't taken any of them.
I actually think there's a tinge of envy here. Most people look at the conditions of employment in the auto industry, and they think "damn, if only I had that!" Here's the reality folks. EVERYONE should have that! They are fundamental to a strong lower and middle class, in America and around the world. Many workers used to "have that", but as many of you will attest, you have been losing these benefits for years, due mostly to greed and a user-pays philosophy of the Republican party that has ruled since about 1980. The fact is, ever since the 1980's, income inequality has risen spectacularly in every western country - no coincidence, since union membership started falling at around about the same time.
GM, Ford and Chrysler have negotiated health care and pension plans which - lets face it - every worker should get. This should be praised, not derided. They have done this out of their own generosity, because you guys don't have a compulsorary superannuation scheme like Australia does, or a Universal Government Health care system like every other western country in the world does. These are cost pressures that every American business either chooses not to pay for, leaving workers royally screwed, OR it does offer some cover at great employer expense. Employers shouldn't have to cover this crap - these are failures of government that has looked away too long and now seems likely to look away for good.
And now, people are blaming the UAW for fighting for it? Sheesh!
Here's the deal: The UAW and its members have actually had the balls to fight for the sort of pay and conditions in their workplace that the Democratic Party should have been fighting for strongly everywhere in America over the past 30 years. This isn't something we should deride - it's something we should praise! Andf more to the point, it's something we should organise around, take on board and fight even harder for, not just in Australia, or America, but everywhere.