Read this article about the United Auto Workers, who must somehow balance the needs of its working members with the expectations of its retirees, who, between pensions and health-care, cost American auto companies many many billions of dollars year. "Health care and pension benefits cost them $1,000 for each vehicle they sell, they say, compared with a few hundred dollars for companies like Toyota, Honda and Nissan." Because of the way things are structured, the UAW needs to please everybody without stomping the auto industry itself into the ground.
One could imagine an auto industry with a keen sense of its long-term interests that might have years ago pushed for Hillary-care but could still today push for universal health care, help bring it to fruition, and use the $12 billion in annual savings to invest in designs for more efficient cars and in technologies to improve the efficiency of the existing fleet. One could also imagine an auto industry so hesitant to change that it bankrupts itself, screws its retirees, is revamped by people who ax some current employees and cut benefits for others, maintain production status quo, and increase profit margins while almost everybody else loses. Which do you think is more likely?
When your bosses over time have proved that they can't tell the difference between taking care of business and going out of business, who can blame the employees when they arrange things such that their long term interests are protected as much as possible in the short term.
"Who could have guessed that someday the price of gasoline would increase to reflect that oil is a finite resource that will greatly diminish within within a few generations" [Condi Oil Tanker Rice, the one with the terrible long term planning skills, on the board directors of Exxon]
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | July 19, 2007 at 10:49 AM