Sunday, December 14, 2008

FNS: Corker vs Stabenow

Senators Corker and Stabenow were on Fox News Sunday discussing the auto bailout.

Stabenow wasn't making a lot of sense.

Corker asserted that the bond holders were willing to take $0.30 on the dollar, but the UAW wasn't willing to become "competitive" (a purposely vague term, and established by the certification of a future Obama Labor Secretary) by the end of 2009.

Some time after Corker said this, Stabenow reached into her bag of talking points and pulled out the idea that the UAW workers were the only ones asked to make sacrifices. She didn't even bother to address Corker's previous claim about the bond holders already having agreed to severe cramdowns.

Another of Stabenow's claims doesn't make sense. She stated that the wages (I think only for newer workers) are already comparable to the transplant companies, and in some cases lower.

I guess legacy costs are a killer, aren't they? But if the labor costs are already not just "competitive" but virutally identical, there are two problems:
  1. What was the problem with the Corker amendment? Why did the UAW and the Democrats reject language mandating something that has already happened?
  2. What is the value of the UAW if they can't negotiate better wages than a non-union shop? Why would anybody care what happens to the UAW if they aren't adding any benefit for their members?
The UAW talking points don't seem logically consistent to me. Are they that attached to their 22-pound work rule manual?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Who throws a shoe?!? Honestly!"

~MJA

Anonymous said...

One could argue that the union effects the wages of all workers in a given industry - rather than just the union ones...
Matt

Anonymous said...

Also - do you really not know why one might object to legislation mandate of an established situation...really?

Matt

Sockless Joe said...

If I'm understanding your question correctly, my response is that the alternative to legislative interference is bankruptcy, in which a judge can open up any existing negotiated situation s/he deems necessary. So it's "play by congress' rules or go see the judge."

The Corker rules were purposely vague and could be easily met. UAW decided to take its chances with Bush, who seems to have caved.