Even if a deal for a $15-billion to $17-billion preliminary bailout comes together this weekend to keep carmakers afloat into 2009, they will continue to be dogged by their most significant competitive disadvantage: a high-priced, unionized workforce. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
Cutler is an excellent writer, but being an academic, I wonder how he would have graded the piece had a student presented it. Opinion writers are, by nature, speculative: Could've, should've, would 've causes us to go beyond the facts of a story. But Cutler's argument — that the UAW didn't take advantage of its relationship with its Japanese counterparts — remains unsubstantiated. He offers no quotes or references to previous publications to show that Shoigi DIDN'T use his "leverage." Seems to me a professor of sociology ought to explore the cultural implications and networking of the Japanese corporations vis-a-vis Japanese unions rather than the Right-to-Work laws in certain states. What proof is there that Shoigi is a "good friend" of the UAW? As far as the UK deal was concerned: Which country had the largest potential market? Shoigi and his corporate brothers knew the answer to that. Cutler knows that culture — especially the homogenous ones — win out every time.
I share Cutler's remorse that the transplanted factories were not union organized. But unfortunately, it was bad timing. Reagan Democrats were popping up all over — especially in the south (except in Birmingham where steel workers made inroads during WW II) unions were generally demonized (hence, "Right-to-Work"). I think the real concern is: Whether the UAW will remain viable. If it doesn't, it won't be long til workers in the transplanted factories face reduced pay and benefits — nothing like the specter of POTENTIAL unionization to keep corporations on their toes.