Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThere's agreement and then there's forced submission. It's hard to tell which is which when news reporters leave out key facts from the story.
Many papers reported this week that General Motors and Chrysler, which have borrowed billions of dollars from the federal government to avoid bankruptcy, will be closing their jobs banks. The programs kept well-trained workers standing by, drawing almost their full salaries, in the hope that new jobs would materialize.
G.M. said on Wednesday that it would end its jobs bank leading to layoffs for about 1,600 workers.
One story reported that the United Automobile Workers union had "agreed" to let the carmakers terminate the programs. Letting jobs banks go was described as "one of several concessions offered' by UAW leadership to help win support for the bridge loans. The UAW's agreeing to let the companies delay paying into a new retiree health care trust, too, and they've begun talks with the companies about other ways to cut costs in labor agreements.
It all sounds very Zen. And it may be that a cloud of consensus has settled over the companies and the UAW. But there's one fact that adds an important bit of context. As we have reported, there's a no-strike ban included in the government's loan agreement with Chrysler and GM. If the union leadership didn't want to go along, it's not clear what they'd do... Under the government's agreement with the companies, any strike by workers is grounds for forfeiting the loan... even if it led the companies to go bankcrupt. They certainly couldn't strike.
A detail maybe. But surely a detail that fits in any story about unions conceding, agreeing and entering into talks about more cuts.
Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415) on cable (8 pm ET on Channel 67 in Manhattan) and online right here at GRITtv.org or streaming live on The Nation.com Mondays through Thursdays from noon to 2 pm ET.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Agreeing to a deal ending paying for no work?
What agree? No work no pay us how the real world works.... But then we are talkng about the confusion on the left evidenced n the author above.
Delay paying into health care trust? I'd say the union boys slreadywere paid that when they received money for no work and should had sense to pay into the fnd themselves.
No strike? Fricken, DUH! Only fools would strike a bankrupt vmpny and only fools would slow it or agree to consider it ........ No wonder GMis dead.... And should stay that way. Only govt would agree to let mney head anywhere near auAW and GM.
Keepng high trained workers on stand by in case new jobs are created?
You gotta be shittin me.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 1:52pm
Gotta say, I'm a little confused, too, Ms Flanders on this idea that the UAW should be open for strikes...
that would shut down (obviously you would oppose scabs) the GM plant...
thus negating any chance of the company remaining open, generating business, and making the loans to it worthwhile.
What's the UP-side to the UAW if they are able to strike and do it???
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 2:00pm
Seriously, I don't know why GM and Chrysler keep delaying the inevitable.
Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 2:30pm
None of the above commentators had much to say about the hypocrisy of limiting the rights of Auto Workers but letting the bankers go wild.
Probably because there is nothing to say.
Their notions of no work no pay etc. etc. etc. should apply to all but as always morality is a convenience.
Posted by deadondres at 01/30/2009 @ 2:49pm
"None of the above commentators had much to say about the hypocrisy of limiting the rights of Auto Workers but letting the bankers go wild."---Posted by deadondres at 01/30/2009 @ 2:49pm
Neither did Ms Flanders...did she?
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 3:05pm
Keepng high trained workers on stand by in case new jobs are created?
this was indeed the rationale. skilled workers don't grow on trees.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2009 @ 4:09pm